Review Article

Mapping the interprofessional education landscape for students on rural clinical placements: an integrative literature review


name here
Lorraine Walker1
MN Research Current PhD Candidate, Senior Lecturer Monash Unversity and PhD candidate University of Tasmania *

name here
Merylin Cross2
PhD, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Rural Health, School of Health Sciences

name here
Tony Barnett3
PhD, Director, Centre for Rural Health, School of Health Sciences


* Lorraine Walker


1 Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia; and University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia

2, 3 University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia


4 May 2018 Volume 18 Issue 2


RECEIVED: 24 January 2017

REVISED: 31 July 2017

ACCEPTED: 26 August 2017


Walker L, Cross M, Barnett T.  Mapping the interprofessional education landscape for students on rural clinical placements: an integrative literature review. Rural and Remote Health 2018; 18: 4336.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence


Introduction:  Interprofessional collaboration and effective teamwork are core to optimising rural health outcomes; however, little is known about the opportunities available for interprofessional education (IPE) in rural clinical learning environments. This integrative literature review addresses this deficit by identifying, analysing and synthesising the research available about the nature of and potential for IPE provided to undergraduate students undertaking rural placements, the settings and disciplines involved and the outcomes achieved.
Methods:  An integrative review method was adopted to capture the breadth of evidence available about IPE in the rural context. This integrative review is based on a search of nine electronic databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Search terms were adapted to suit those used by different disciplines and each database and included key words related to IPE, rurality, undergraduate students and clinical placement. The inclusion criteria included primary research and reports of IPE in rural settings, peer reviewed, and published in English between 2000 and mid-2016.
Results:  This review integrates the results of 27 primary research studies undertaken in seven countries: Australia, Canada, USA, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Africa and Tanzania. Despite geographical, cultural and health system differences, all of the studies reviewed were concerned with developing collaborative, interprofessional practice-ready graduates and adopted a similar mix of research methods. Overall, the 27 studies involved more than 3800 students (range 3–1360) from 36 disciplinary areas, including some not commonly associated with interprofessional education, such as theology. Interprofessional education was provided in a combination of university and rural placement settings including hospitals, community health services and other rural venues. The education activities most frequently utilised were seminars, tutorial discussion groups (n=21, 84%), case presentations (n=11, 44%) and community projects (n=11, 44%) augmented by preliminary orientation and ongoing interaction with clinicians during placement. The studies reviewed demonstrate that rural clinical learning environments provide rich and varied IPE opportunities for students that increase their interprofessional understanding, professional respect for other roles, and awareness of the collaborative and interprofessional nature of rural practice.
Conclusion:  This review addresses the lack of attention given to understanding IPE in the rural context, provides Australian and international evidence that initiatives are being offered to diverse student groups undertaking placements in rural settings and proposes a research agenda to develop a relevant framework to support rural IPE. Rural clinical learning environments afford a rich resource whereby health professionals can conceptualise IPE creatively and holistically to construct transformative learning experiences for students. This review develops a case for supporting the development, trialling, evaluation and translation of IPE initiatives that harness the opportunities afforded by rural placements. Further research is required to examine the ways to optimise IPE opportunities in the rural clinical context, including the potential for simulation-based activities, the challenges to achieving sustainable programs, and to evaluate the impact of interprofessional education on collaboration and health outcomes.


Australia, clinical learning environment, clinical placement, fieldwork, interprofessional collaboration, interprofessional education, rural placements, undergraduate students, work-integrated learning.

full article:


The complexity of contemporary health care demands interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and teamwork1,2. WHO defines IPC as ‘when multiple health workers from different professional backgrounds work together with patients, families, carers and communities to deliver the highest quality of care2(p.7) and has advocated for IPC for several decades. In its most recent Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice2 the WHO reasserts that effective interprofessional education (IPE) is necessary for preparing a collaborative practice-ready health workforce. There is mounting support, nationally and internationally, for IPE to be embedded in undergraduate learning to ensure students are equipped with the requisite knowledge, skills and attitudes for employment in the healthcare sector3-5. Given the need for graduates to be practice-ready, pre-qualification IPE can be seen as ‘an investment in the future…’ 4(p.16). Interprofessional education is defined as ‘when two or more professions learn with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care’6. For the purpose of this review, IPE is interpreted as applied by Reeves and colleagues 4(p.5), as ‘… all types of educational, training, learning or teaching initiatives, involving more than one profession in joint, interactive learning.’

The increased momentum of IPE in Australia mirrors international activity3,7-9, although it is yet to become embedded across all health professional curricula and the clinical learning environment3,7,8,10. In Australia, despite efforts to progress a national agenda, IPE remains a disparate range of fundamental or grass roots activities, often in rural environments, with no shared vision and little synchronisation within and between states and territories3,7,11,12. The clinical learning environment constitutes an integral part of undergraduate healthcare curricula where the links between theory and practice are optimised through work-integrated learning13-15. Accordingly, the clinical learning environment affords an ideal setting for promoting IPE, understanding IPC and developing the skills required to facilitate transition from student to collaborative practitioner4,16-18.

Since 1999, there have been a number of Cochrane reviews, Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) reviews and other scoping and integrative reviews that reflect a growing body and higher level of evidence supporting IPE. In their literature review of 83 IPE studies, Abu-Rish and colleagues16 cited more than 20 related reviews. In cataloguing these reviews, they noted that IPE research has predominantly targeted three key themes: the conceptual basis for IPE and associated competencies, research methods signifying effective teamwork and communication, and developing sustainable models for applying IPE to health professional curricula and clinical practice16. Although Reeves, Zwarenstein and colleagues, key authors in the IPE field, have undertaken multiple reviews related to IPE interventions and outcomes 4,19-24, none of these reviews consider the implications of IPE in the context of rural practice settings or clinical learning environments.

Despite the growing body of IPE literature, little is known about rural clinical learning environments and their capacity to support IPE. To the knowledge of the authors, only one review has explored IPE in rural clinical settings and its focus was on paramedic involvement25. This represents a noticeable gap in knowledge because there are increasing expectations that students will be exposed to rural practice settings, IPE will be provided to students undertaking workplace learning2,5,15 and graduates will be ready for IPC2. Other factors fuelling the need for a review that maps IPE in rural settings include:

  • the movement towards community-based person-centred care26-28
  • the reliance in rural health on IPC29-31
  • efforts to build placement capacity in non-acute, including rural, settings15,32
  • the drive to increase students’ engagement in rural practice to address workforce shortages26,33.

Furthermore, if the clinical learning environment is considered an ideal location for promoting work-integrated learning and preparing practice-ready graduates, attention is warranted to exploring the potential for IPE in rural as well as other contexts. This review seeks to address the gap in knowledge about IPE in the rural context. Accordingly, the focus has been to map the rural IPE landscape; that is, the learning opportunities available in rural settings, the settings involved, the nature of IPE provided to students undertaking rural placements, the types of students (disciplines) that have access to IPE in rural settings and the outcomes of IPE in the rural context.

In rural areas, the community represents the platform for care34,35. Killam and Carter note that ‘distinct characteristics of rural areas include isolation, limited access to healthcare resources, small populations, significant distances between services and providers, and informal social structures’(p. 2)31. There is a well-established body of evidence that associates rural practice with care across the lifespan, advanced generalist knowledge and integrated collaborative care29,30,35. This integration of health and social care, and continuum of community and hospital care, makes it especially important that rural health professionals are equipped for IPC 31,35,36. For undergraduates to be equipped with the prerequisite skills and attitudes for IPC, they need to experience these in the practice setting35,37-39.

Evidence suggests that ‘rural placements have the potential to provide a better learning experience than that of the urban campus, due to the close contact between student and supervisor in the rural setting’40(p.122). Rural placements are often in smaller settings such as small rural hospitals and community-based health services where students learn and gain experience in a multidisciplinary team environment with health professionals often well known to each other35,36,41. Like other primary healthcare settings, one of the benefits afforded by rural placements is the opportunity to experience IPC within a close-knit community of practice30,35,41,42. Rural placements have been shown in before-and-after studies to improve interprofessional abilities and influence future collaboration in the workplace34,39,43. Rural practice settings may therefore be an ideal IPE environment for students because they provide a range of opportunities for students to follow the patient journey and work across the continuum of care and professional boundaries34,39,41,44.

There is potential for other practice settings to provide IPE, but the inherent importance in rural practice of sustaining collaborative interprofessional relationships renders the lack of attention to IPE in the rural context a critical omission in the literature. While there is considerable scholarship about rural clinical learning environments, the notion of IPE in these settings is relatively new and has not received the same level of attention that it has in more urban and classroom settings. Having more than a decade of experience in teaching and studying IPE, the authors were cognisant of the need for a review to address the gap in knowledge about IPE in the rural context. The aims of this review were to identify, analyse and synthesise the research available about the nature of and the potential for IPE provided to students undertaking rural placements, the settings and disciplines involved and the outcomes achieved.


The integrative review process outlined by Whittemore and Knafl was adopted for this review, ‘allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research in order to more fully understand a phenomenon of concern’ 45(p.547). An integrative review process was considered the most appropriate method because of the diverse and complex nature of IPE, the range of disparate research methods used to study IPE4,16 and the applicability of this process to build theoretical understanding and to guide policy and practice46,47. Moreover, as a ‘new emerging topic’, the notion of IPE in the rural practice environment was well suited to an integrative approach47(p.356).The five-stage process outlined by Whittemore and Knafl incorporates problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis and presentation of integrated findings45. The process was expanded in recognition that integrative reviews can also synthesise data, include theoretical and empirical data and fulfil a range of purposes, such as the development of a conceptual framework or identification of a research agenda46,47.

Problem identification

The increasing complexity of contemporary health care is driving the need for effective teamwork and IPC, which in turn, is increasing the impetus to facilitate IPE within the clinical learning context1,2,5,7,24,48. The need for IPE is compounded by current and projected workforce shortages in rural health worldwide5,40,49,50, increasing expectations that students will undertake rural placements40,48, that IPE will be provided to students undertaking workplace learning7, and the need to graduate collaborative practice-ready health professionals2.Collectively, the drivers stimulating IPE in rural practice settings necessitate a review of the nature of and potential for IPE available for students undertaking rural placements.

Literature search

Nine databases were searched: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar. A range of search terms were used to ensure the different nomenclature and related concepts used by different disciplines were incorporated by the search strategy (Table 1).

The search strategy was adapted to suit each database and the Boolean technique using AND/OR was applied to capture similar or interchangeable concepts. To promote rigour, the reference lists of retrieved articles were searched manually by the first author to identify additional studies and published reports of IPE initiatives not captured by the search strategy.

The inclusion criteria included primary research and reports of IPE activities in rural settings, peer reviewed and published in English between 2000 and mid-2016. The timeframe was chosen purposefully by the authors to capture the increased focus on rural placements and expectations since the turn of the century that students will be exposed to IPE, developing trends in IPE and the outcomes of longitudinal studies5,24. For the purpose of this review, the clinical learning environment is recognised to include rural and regional hospitals, multi-purpose services, community health services, general medical practice settings, community pharmacies, mobile and outreach health services and rural communities. Exclusion criteria included postgraduate and professional development activities, lack of evaluative detail and uniprofessional studies involving students working with health professionals from other disciplines.

The search was undertaken by the first author with advice from a research librarian. Titles and abstracts were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The initial search, including those sourced from reference lists, identified 111 articles. After reviewing the titles and abstracts against inclusion criteria, 63 were retrieved for detailed review. Duplicates were eliminated, leaving a total of 41 articles. Ten studies were reported twice and four lacked detail, effectively reducing the number of included studies to 27 (Fig1). Similar to the approach adopted by Reeves and colleagues23, studies were not excluded on the grounds of methodological quality but were examined with a specific lens prescribed by the review objectives and inclusion criteria47.

Table 1:  Search terms used as part of the search strategy within the nine chosen databases

Figure 1:  Flow diagram of article selection process.

Data evaluation and analysis

The authors devised a data extraction tool that addressed the review aims. The first author undertook the data extraction. To facilitate evaluation and analysis, the authors independently appraised and collectively reviewed the included studies. Findings were aggregated where meaningful, for example the disciplines engaged in IPE. Content was analysed manually to identify and extract the main ideas and themes as they related to the research aims; in other words, identifying and analysing the nature of the IPE initiatives available to students undertaking rural placements, the settings, students (disciplines) involved, methods used to evaluate outcomes, and the outcomes achieved (Table 2). Recurring patterns and themes were analysed together with similarities and differences, outliers and learning interventions. This process facilitated description, aggregation, abstraction and elicited insights into some of the reported challenges to provision of IPE programs. The IPE activities described in each report were compared and contrasted, observing for patterns, congruence across jurisdictions and unique identifiers. Meanings were discussed, abstracted and synthesised by the authorship team and any differences were resolved by consensus.

Table 2: Overview of included studies


The 27 studies reviewed were undertaken in seven countries: Australia (10), USA (10), Canada (3), and one each from New Zealand, Tanzania, South Africa and the Philippines. Despite geographical, cultural and health system differences, the studies reviewed were all concerned with developing collaborative interprofessional practice-ready graduates. Data were collected in similar ways, utilising a range of procedures such as student surveys, focus group discussions and/or debriefing. Two studies also utilised direct observation: one through the use of facilitators51, the other by video capture52. A mixed methods approach was adopted in 15 of the studies, nine were quantitative, and three qualitative. Eleven applied a controlled pre–post study design. Only one longitudinal study was reported43. There were no randomised controlled trials related to IPE in the rural context although one quasi-experimental study with a comparator group of non-participating students was reported53. Some studies utilised validated survey tools: three used the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS), one used the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS), two used a modified version of the RIPLS and one used the Team Performance Scale. Other studies utilised customised survey tools; however, the development, pilot testing and psychometric properties of these instruments were not reported.


The IPE activities were undertaken in a combination of university and rural placement settings including hospitals, community health centres and other community venues. The settings ranged from an immersion simulation exercise at rural sites in Australia54,55 to a mobile outreach program that promoted access to primary health care for an under-served migrant population in the USA56. The most common setting for IPE activities was community-based primary care where students identified healthcare needs and developed related activities. Several studies – one in Canada, one in Australia and two in the USA43,56-58 – emphasised that the community were joint participants in the IPE activities and provided support for the IPE undertaken. Loury and colleagues56 noted that the growth of a collaborative team requires community partners, students and faculty to share common goals. Brewer59 reported that although their program received funding support from the local area health education centre, financial constraints may impact on programs.


Overall, the 27 studies reviewed reported IPE activities involving a total of more than 3800 students. The number of participants in each ranged from three60 to 1360 61. All studies except for one62 included students from at least three professions. Although nursing and medical students predominated, collectively the IPE studies reviewed included students from 36 disciplinary fields. There were several ‘outlier’ groups, such as theology, veterinary medicine, natural medicine and human communication science. Student demographics were rarely identified and academic levels were reported inconsistently. Students’ participation in IPE was predominantly voluntary and not mandated as part of their undergraduate course.

Interprofessional learning activities

The nature of the rural clinical learning environment in a range of settings and countries provided rich and varied interprofessional learning opportunities for students to engage with other disciplines and participate in a broad range of IPE activities. Some IPE initiatives were a ‘one-off’ or pilot44,60,63-65, several programs had been offered successively for 3 years or more39,55,57 and two for 10 years66,67. Regardless of the country of origin, the most frequent IPE activities were seminars, tutorials, discussion groups (n=21, 84%), case presentations (n=11, 44%) and community projects (n=11, 44%).

The most utilised IPE format was an initial orientation or discussion followed by interacting with clinicians during placement. This practice-based role-modelling format was considered conducive to developing a greater understanding of teamwork, interprofessional communication and collaborative practice52,68. Community-based participatory research was a key element of one program which involved students writing scholarly papers, posters and attending conference presentations56. The timeframes dedicated to IPE activities varied considerably, for example a one-day rural community visit, a structured weekly program over two semesters and a whole-of-course program for 3 years (Table 2).


All 27 studies reported a range of positive learning outcomes. The most common outcomes assessed were students’ attitudes toward IPE, knowledge of and respect for roles of other professions and development of collaborative skills such as communication, shared decision-making and conflict resolution. All studies reported evidence of changes in the attitude or perception of students. Two studies reported the breaking down of ageing stereotypes and increased interest in working with older adults59,69. Three studies reported increased student understanding of the diverse needs of the rural community and intent to practice rurally39,61,66. In contrast, Sisson and Westra found that although the rural IPE experience was highly valued, interest in rural practice was reduced in students with a rural background62.

Only one study reported the longitudinal assessment of change in behaviour or attitudes43. Using the IEPS pre-test–post-test instrument, Hayward and colleagues43 reported a significant difference (p≤0.001) in changes in behaviour and attitudes for all students over a 3-year period. There were also statistically significant differences between discipline categories: nursing students scored lower than other disciplines regarding professional competence and autonomy and on cooperation and resource sharing within and across disciplines (p≤0.011).

Engagement in IPE enabled students to develop a greater understanding of their own and other professional roles, the value of other professions and the importance of teamwork (Table 2). Students found being involved in the full continuum of care that occurs in rural settings beneficial and gained greater understanding of the complexity of rural healthcare issues and practice63,70-73. Likewise, local clinicians and communities reported positive benefits from having students and developed a greater understanding of IPE, students’ needs and the complexities of placement43,67.


This review summarises and synthesises the research available about the nature of and potential for IPE initiatives offered to undergraduate students undertaking rural placements, the students involved and the outcomes achieved in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of IPE in the rural context. The rural setting was chosen because of the drive to build placement capacity by increasing students’ exposure to expanded settings, including rural practice15,40, the collaborative nature of this environment and the reliance in rural practice of sustaining effective interprofessional relationships34-36,41. Inevitably, the context of learning environments influences the capacity of agencies to provide IPE and the type of IPE opportunities available. The variation between studies reveals the heterogeneity of rural clinical learning environments and eclecticism of IPE programs as reported in other IPE reviews4,16,22, but also similarities and relevance across different jurisdictions. The differences also reflect alternative ways that placements are configured, IPE is conceptualised and the types of students that are ‘connected’ to engage in IPE. The similarities in focus may partially reflect the international uptake of the WHO framework2.

A range of activities were undertaken, from seminar-based group discussions to observation-based learning where students were closely engaged with the community. However, although Barr and colleagues74 identify simulation as a modality for IPE, it featured in only four of the studies reviewed. As simulation is being increasingly adopted in academia and clinical practice settings75, its use and potential in rural IPE warrant further investigation.

Recently, there has been a focal shift in the mainstream literature to underpin IPE with theoretical foundations23,76. According to Barr and Low ‘all IPE is more coherently planned, consistently delivered, rigorously evaluated and effectively reported when it is built on explicit and clear theoretical foundations’ 76(p.18). Only two of the studies reviewed provided a clear outline of the theoretical framework employed44,52.

Scheduling and sequencing IPE activities were considered challenging but critical for meaningful collaboration to occur. The challenges of scheduling IPE activities are not unique to rural practice and have been identified as problematic in other settings7,77-79. In the studies reviewed, IPE activities were invariably developed by academics and not always in collaboration with clinical leaders and clinicians. Where clinicians were involved in the development of IPE, there was a greater focus and acceptance of these activities, which in some instances led to ongoing programs66,67. Four studies identified implementation and sustainability issues related to lack of funding and staffing52,53,66,79.

Few studies reported the validity or reliability of evaluation instruments. Researchers that reported the validity of instruments principally used those with established psychometric rigour, such as IEPS and RIPLS. However, there is some debate over the utility and psychometric integrity of these instruments for measuring outcomes of IPE80. This debate highlights the need to review existing instruments for their validity and relevance to the rural context. Additionally, the lack of description of the evaluation instruments used undermines replication. The findings reported most frequently were individual student outcomes: increased IP understanding, respect for professional roles and IPC, and a sense of how individual professional roles can complement others. These learner-focused outcomes reflect those reported in other reviews81,82. While most studies identified improved communication skills and transformed relationships between student groups, other outcomes included increased understanding of rural health issues and healthcare needs83-85.

There is some evidence that IPE provided in context in a clinical learning environment has more impact on learning outcomes than classroom-based IPE11,85. The benefit of IPE situated within the clinical learning environment is consistent with the need for students to have work-integrated learning experiences that immerse them in the actualities of everyday practice85,86. In the workplace setting, students can engage professionally with clinicians, including those from other disciplines, begin to unravel the elements of being interprofessional and develop an understanding of IPC in context11,35,44,85.

Although the level of IPE evidence available in the rural context precludes the development of a robust conceptual framework, there are signposts in the literature to guide those interested in providing IPE in rural settings. These include the need to assess the local rural IPE landscape – that is, the opportunities and resources potentially available, such as:

  • identifying local interprofessional learning opportunities
  • incorporating primary care into student placements
  • identifying IPE leaders/champions to facilitate the planning, organisation and development of activities and programs
  • exploring simulation resources suitable for IPE
  • accessing discipline experts (eg visiting specialists)
  • involving local communities
  • providing opportunities for students to share meaningful IPE experiences with other disciplines.

This review contributes a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of and potential for IPE available to students in rural clinical learning environments; however, there are a number of limitations.


Although all 27 of the studies reviewed reinforced the value of providing IPE in the rural setting, this review is limited by the lack of IPE research in this context, the heterogeneity of studies, limited use of validated tools and the dearth of longitudinal evidence. Such variation mitigates meta-analysis, limits understanding of the benefits of IPE in rural settings over time and, specifically, its relationship to IPC. The integrative review process allows for synthesis of all of the data from primary sources regardless of level of evidence; however, lower levels of evidence preclude the findings being generalised. While only one study was quasi-experimental and reported control groups53, Stone argues that this type of research may not be optimal for evaluating IPE87. According to Stone, the use of randomised controlled designs in this sphere ‘where there are too many variables that cannot, and in most cases probably should not be controlled for’87(p.263} would limit the studies undertaken and the knowledge gained.

Although the literature search was extensive, some studies may have been missed by the search strategy because of the content of titles and abstracts, those published in languages other than English. Others may have been missed due to lack of information, or because of researcher bias. The reviewers are invested in the field and therefore may have unwittingly ascribed bias to the review process. To mitigate bias and promote rigour, advice was sought from a research librarian, and the authors individually searched for additional articles, independently reviewed the articles and collectively discussed the findings. Another limitation was that this review focused on IPE opportunities for students from different disciplines undertaking rural placements to interact, engage and learn with and from other students. As such, it does not address the opportunities the rural clinical learning environment affords for students to work individually within a small interdisciplinary team or the potential of other learning environments to provide IPE. Finally, although the scope of the review focused on profiling the IPE initiatives provided to students rather than exploring the challenges and barriers, some findings suggest these warrant further investigation.


This review reinforces the immaturity of the concept of IPE in the rural context. It addresses an important gap in the existing IPE literature and provides Australian and international evidence that a range of IPE initiatives are available to diverse student groups undertaking placements in rural practice settings. The findings demonstrate the potential that rural settings can offer for promoting IPE to students; the outcomes achievable such as interprofessional understanding, professional respect for other roles, collaboration and teamwork; and greater understanding of the collaborative and interprofessional nature of rural practice. Rural clinical learning environments afford a rich resource whereby students and practitioners can create constructive and transformative IPE experiences. This review contributes new insights to inform the practice of IPE in rural areas and provides a compelling case supporting the development, trialling, evaluation and translation of IPE in the rural context. Furthermore, this review proposes a research agenda to help build and develop a conceptual framework that could support rural IPE. The agenda includes higher level research that examines the prerequisites for optimising IPE opportunities, the challenges to developing sustainable IPE programs, the potential for simulation-based IPE in rural settings and the impact of IPE on IPC and health outcomes over time.


1 Institute of Medicine. Measuring the impact of interprofessional education on collaborative practice and patient outcomes. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2015. DOI link
2 World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. 2010. Available: web link (Accessed 17 February 2015).
3 Interprofessional Curriculum Renewal Consortium, Australia. Interprofessional education: a national audit. Report to Health Workforce Australia. Sydney: University of Technology, Sydney: Centre for Research in Learning and Change, 2013.
4 Reeves S, Perrier L, Goldman J, Freeth D, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013; 3. DOI link
5 Thistlethwaite J. Interprofessional education: a review of context, learning and the research agenda. Medical Education 2012; 46: 58-70. DOI link, PMid:22150197
6 Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education. Defining IPE. 2002. Available: web link (Accessed 3 January 2015).
7 Matthews L, Pockett R, Nisbet G, Thistlethwaite J, Dunston R, Lee A, White J. Building capacity in Australian interprofessional health: perspectives from key health and higher education stakeholders. Australian Health Review 2011; 35: 136-140. DOI link, PMid:21612723
8 Nicol P. Interprofessional education for health professionals in Western Australia: perspectives and activity. Final report. Sydney, NSW: University of Technology, Sydney Centre for Research in Learning & Change, 2012.
9 Nisbet G, Lee A, Kumar K, Thistlethwaite J, Dunston R. Interprofessional health education: a literature review. Overview of international and Australian developments in interprofessional health education (IPE). Sydney, NSW: University of Technology, 2011.
10 Jacob E, Barnett T, Walker L, Cross M, Missen K. Australian clinician's views on interprofessional education for students in the rural clinical setting. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education 2012; 2(2): 218-229. DOI link
11 Henderson AJ, O'Keefe MF, Alexander HG. Interprofessional education in clinical practice: not a single vaccine. Australian Health Review 2010; 32(4): 224-236. DOI link, PMid:20497737
12 Dunston R, Lee A, Lee A, Matthews L, Nisbet G, Pockett R, Thistlethwaite J, White J. Interprofessional health education in Australia: the way forward. Sydney, NSW: University of Technology, Sydney and the University of Sydney, 2009.
13 Gallagher P, Carr L, Wang SH, Fudakowski Z. Simple truths from medical students: perspectives on the quality of clinical learning environments. Medical Teacher 2012; 34(5): e332-e337. DOI link, PMid:22471917
14 Newton J, Billett S, Jolly B, Ockerby C. Lost in translation: barriers to learning in health professional clinical education. Learning in Health and Social Care 2009; 8(4): 315-327. DOI link
15 Siggins Miller Consultants. Promoting quality in clinical placements: literature review and national stakeholder consultation. Adelaide, SA: Health Workforce Australia, 2012.
16 Abu-Rish E, Kim S, Choe L, Varpio L, Malik V, White A, et al. Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students: a literature review. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2012; 26(6): 444-451. DOI link, PMid:22924872
17 Nisbet G, Hendry GD, Rolls G, Field MJ. Interprofessional learning for pre-qualification health care students: an outcomes based evaluation. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2008; 22(1): 57-68. DOI link, PMid:18202986
18 Dubouloz C, Savard J, Burnett D, Guitard P. An interprofessional rehabilitation university clinic in primary health care: a collaborative learning model for physical therapist students in a clinical placement. Journal of Physical Therapy Education 2010; 24(1): 19-24. DOI link
19 Zwarenstein M, Atkins J, Barr H, Hammick M, Koppel I, Reeves S. A systematic review of interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care 1999; 13(4): 417-424. DOI link
20 Zwarenstein M, Reeves S, Barr H, Hammick M, Koppel I, Atkins J. Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000; 3. DOI link
21 Zwarenstein M, Goldman J, Reeves S. Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009; 3(3). DOI link, PMid:19588316
22 Reeves S, Goldman J, Burton A, Sawatzky-Girling B. Synthesis of systematic review evidence of interprofessional education. Journal of Allied Health 2010; 39(Supplement 1): 198-203. PMid:21174040
23 Reeves S, Goldman J, Gilbert J, Tepper J, Silver I, Suter E, Zwarenstein M. A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity of interprofessional interventions. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2011; 25: 167-174. DOI link, PMid:21182439
24 Reeves S, Fletcher S, Barr H, Birch I, Boet S, Davies N, et al. A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Medical Teacher 2016. Available: web link (Accessed 30 October 2016).
25 Mulholland P, Barnett T, Spencer J. Interprofessional learning and rural paramedic care. Rural and Remote Health 2014; 14(3): 2821. Available: web link (Accessed 18 October 2016).
26 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's health 2014. Australia's Health Series no. 14. Cat. no. AUS 178. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014.
27 Australian Department of Health and Ageing. Australian Government 2008-09 Health and Ageing Portfolio Budget Statements Outcome 6: Rural Health . 2008. Available: web link (Accessed 3 January 2016).
28 World Health Organization. Strengthening the capacity of community health workers to deliver care for sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (Online). 2015. Available: web link (Accessed 3 January 2016).
29 Bourke L, Humphreys JS, Wakerman J, Taylor J. Understanding rural and remote health: a framework for analysis in Australia. Health & Place 2012; 496-503. DOI link, PMid:22418016
30 Gaudet A, Kelley ML, Williams AM. Understanding the distinct experience of rural interprofessional collaboration in developing palliative care programs. Rural and Remote Health 2014; 14(2): 2711. Available: web link (Accessed 16 January 2016).
31 Killam LA, Carter LM. Challenges to the student nurse on clinical placement in the rural setting: a review of the literature. Rural and Remote Health 2010; 10: 1523. Available: web link (Accessed 16 January 2016).
32 Barnett T, Walker LE, Jacob E, Missen K, Cross MD, Shahwan-Akl L. Expanding the clinical placement capacity of rural hospitals in Australia: displacing Peta to place Paul? Nurse Education Today 2012; 32(5): 485-489. DOI link, PMid:21920643
33 Strasser R. Community engagement: a key to successful rural clinical education. Rural and Remote Health 2010; 10(3): 1543. Available: web link (Accessed 22 October 2016).
34 Faresjo T. Interprofessional education – to break boundaries and build bridges. Rural and Remote Health 2006; 6: 602. Available: web link (Accessed 10 November 2015).
35 Hays RB. Interprofessional education in rural practice: how, when and where? Rural and Remote Health 2008; 8: 939. Available: web link (Accessed 10 November 2015).
36 Couper I, Worley P, Strasser R. Rural longitudinal integrated clerkships: lessons from two programs on different continents. Rural and Remote Health 2011; 11(2): 1665. Available: web link (Accessed 10 November 2015).
37 Anderson ES, Ford J, Kinnair DJ. Interprofessional education and practice guide no. 6: developing practice-based interprofessional learning using a short placement model. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2016; 30(4): 433-440. DOI link, PMid:27269042
38 Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: report of an expert panel. Washington, DC: Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel, 2011.
39 McNair R, Stone N, Sims J, Curtis C. Australian evidence for interprofessional education contributing to effective teamwork preparation and interest in rural practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2005; 19(6): 579-594. DOI link, PMid:16373214
40 Mason J. Review of Australian Government health workforce programs. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government, 2013.
41 Spencer J, Woodroffe J, Cross M, Allen P. 'A golden opportunity': exploring interprofessional learning and practice in rural clinical settings. Journal of Interprofessional 2015; 29(4): 389-391. DOI link, PMid:25300807
42 Cragg B, Jelley W, Hirsh M, Barnes P. An interprofessional rural clinical placement pilot project. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2010; 24(2): 207-209. DOI link, PMid:19412860
43 Hayward K, Kochiniuk L, Powell L, Peterson T. Changes in students' perceptions of interdisciplinary practice. Reaching the older adult through mobile service delivery. Journal of Allied Health 2005; 34: 192-198. PMid:16529181
44 Gum LF, Richards JN, Walters L, Forgan J, Lopriore M, Nobes C. Immersing undergraduates into an interprofessional longitudinal rural placement. Rural and Remote Health 2013; 13(1): 2271. Available: web link (Accessed 21 January 2016).
45 Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2005; 52: 546-553. DOI link, PMid:16268861
46 Soares CB, Hoga LAK, Peduzzi M, Sangaleti C, Yonekura T, Silva DRAD. Integrative review: concepts and methods used in nursing. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 2014; 48(2): 329-339. DOI link
47 Torraco RJ. Writing integrative reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review 2005; 4(3): 356-367. DOI link
48 Health Workforce Australia. National rural and remote health workforce innovation and reform strategy. Adelaide, SA: Health Workforce Australia, 2013.
49 Buchan J, O'May F, Dussault G. Nursing workforce policy and the economic crisis: a global overview. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2013; 45(3): 298-307. DOI link
50 Petterson SM, Phillips RL, Bazemore AW, Koinis GT. Unequal distribution of the U.S. primary care workforce. American Family Physician 2013; 87(11). Available: web link (Accessed 21 January 2016).
51 Mu K, Chao C, Jensen GM, Royeen CB. Effects of interprofessional rural training on students' perceptions of interprofessional health care services. Journal of Allied Health 2004; 33(2): 125-131. PMid:15239410
52 Medves J, Paterson P, Chapman CY, Young JH, Tata E, Bowes D, et al. A new inter-professional course preparing learners for life in rural communities. Rural and Remote Health 2008; 8(1): 836. Available: web link (Accessed 21 January 2016).
53 Pullon S, Wilson C, Gallagher P, Skinner M, McKinlay E, Gray L, et al. Transition to practice: can rural interprofessional education make a difference? A cohort study. BMC Medical Education 2016; 16(154): 1-11. DOI link
54 Dalton L, Spencer J, Dunn M, Albert E, Walker J, Farrell G. Re-thinking approaches to undergraduate health professional education: interdisciplinary rural placement program. Collegian 2003; 10(1): 17-21. DOI link
55 Whelan J, Spencer J, Rooney K. A 'RIPPER' project: advancing rural interprofessional health education at the University of Tasmania. Rural and Remote Health 2008; 8(3): 1017. Available: web link (Accessed 21 September 2015).
56 Loury S, Bradfield M, Florence J, Silver K, Hoffman K, Andino A. Addressing the health of Hispanic migrant farmworkers in rural East Tennessee through interprofessional education, experiential learning, and a university/community partnership. International Journal of Health Sciences Education 2013; 1(1): 1-9.
57 Charles G, Bainbridge L, Copeman-Stewart K, Tiffin S, Kassam R. The interprofessional rural program of British Columbia (IRPbc). Journal of Interprofessional Care 2006; 20(12): 40-50. DOI link, PMid:16581638
58 Craig PL, Barnard A, Glasgow N, May E. Evaluating the health 'Hubs and Spokes' interprofessional placements in rural New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Allied Health 2014; 43(3): 176-183. PMid:25194065
59 Brewer JE. An interdisciplinary geriatric component for a rural summer experience. Rural and Remote Health 2010; 10(4): 1550. Available: web link (Accessed 25 September 2015).
60 Howell D, English L, Page J. The Rockcastle Project: a case study of interprofessional clinical education and practice in a rural medical center. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice 2011; 9(2): 1-11. Available: web link (Accessed 20 January 2016).
61 Shannon CK, Baker H, Jackson J, Roy A, Heady H, Gunel E. Evaluation of a required statewide interdisciplinary rural health education program: student attitudes, career intents and perceived quality. Rural and Remote Health 2005; 5(4): 405. Available: web link (Accessed 20 January 2016).
62 Sisson DC, Westra RE. Impact of a rural interprofessional experience in rural communities on medical and pharmacy students. Family Medicine 2011; 43(9): 653-658. PMid:22002778
63 Opina-Tan LA. A pilot implementation of interprofessional education in a community–academe partnership in the Philippines. Education for Health 2013; 26(3): 164-171. DOI link, PMid:25001349
64 Mpofu R, Daniels PS, Adonis T-A, Karaguti WM. Impact of an interprofessional education program on developing skilled graduates well-equipped to practise in rural and underserved areas. Rural and Remote Health 2014; 14(3): 2671. Available: web link (Accessed 22 September 2016).
65 Leshabari S, Lubbock LA, Kaijage H, Kalala W, Koehler G, Massawe S, et al. First steps towards interprofessional health practice in Tanzania: an educational experiment in rural Bagamoyo district. Journal of Public Health Policy 2012; 33: S138-S149. DOI link, PMid:23254840
66 Geller ZD, Rhyne RL, Hansbarger LC, Borrego ME, VanLeit BJ, Scaletti JV. Interdisciplinary health professional education in rural New Mexico: a 10 year experience. Learning in Health and Social Care 2002; 1(1): 33-36. DOI link
67 Goodrow B, Olive KE, Behringer B, Kelley MJ, Bennard B, Grover S, et al. The community partnerships experience: a report of institutional transition at east Tennessee State University. Academic Medicine 2001; 76(2): 134-141. DOI link, PMid:11158831
68 Wakely L, Brown L, Burrows J. Evaluating interprofessional learning modules: health students' attitudes to interprofessional practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2013; 27(5): 424-425. DOI link, PMid:23672605
69 Neill KS, Powell L. Mobile interprofessional wellness care of rural older adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing 2009; 35(7): 46-52. DOI link, PMid:19650623
70 Bolte K, Bennett P, Moore, M. ENRICHing the rural clinical experience for undergraduate health science students: a short report on inter-professional education in Broken Hill. Australian Journal of Rural Health 2012; 20: 42-43. DOI link, PMid:22250877
71 Prout S, Lin I, Nattabi B, Green C. 'I could have never learned this in a lecture': transformative learning in rural health education. Advancements in Health Science Education 2014; 19(147-159). DOI link, PMid:23807733
72 Mareck DG, Uden DL, Larson TA, Shepard MF, Reinert MS. Rural interprofessional service-learning: the Minnesota experience. Academic Medicine 2004; 79(7): 672-676. DOI link, PMid:15234918
73 Lockhart C, Lower T, Loud J. Approaching primary health care through 'Country Week': the impact of a rural placement program on the student learning experience. Australian Journal of Rural Health 2003; 11: 2540255. DOI link
74 Barr H, Koppel I, Reeves S, Hammick M, Freeth D. Effective interprofessional education: argument, assumption and evidence. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. DOI link
75 Nestel D, Tabak D, Tierney T, Layat-Burn C, Robb A, Clark S, et al. Key challenges in simulated patient programs: an international comparative case study. Biomedical Central Medical Education 2011; 11: 69. Available: web link (Accessed 25 February 2016).
76 Barr H, Low H. Introducing interprofessional education. London: Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education, 2013. DOI link
77 Davidson M, Smith RA, Dodd KJ, Smith JS, O'Loughlan MJ. Interprofessional pre-qualification clinical education: a systematic review. Australian Health Review 2008; 32(1): 111-120. DOI link, PMid:18241153
78 Dufrene C. Health care partnerships: a literature review of interdisciplinary education. Journal of Nursing Education 2012; 51(4): 212-216. DOI link, PMid:22356357
79 Lawlis TR, Anson A, Greenfield D. Barriers and enablers that influence sustainable interprofessional education: a literature review. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2014; 28(4): 305-310. DOI link, PMid:24625198
80 Oates M, Davidson M. A critical appraisal of instruments to measure outcomes of interprofessional education. Medical Education 2015; 49(4): 386-398. DOI link, PMid:25800299
81 Connor, A, Rainer, LP, Simcox, JB, Thomsee, K. Increasing the delivery of health care services to migrant farm worker families through a community partnership model. Public Health Nursing 2007; 24(4): 355-360. DOI link, PMid:17553025
82 Lapkin S, Levett-Jones T, Gilligan C. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interprofessional education in health professional programs. Nurse Education Today 2011; 33: 90-102. DOI link, PMid:22196075
83 Deutchman ME, Nearing K, Baumgarten B, Westfall JM. Interdisciplinary immersion week. Rural and Remote Health 2012; 12(2): 2045. Available: web link (Accessed 25 February 2016).
84 Woodroffe J, Spencer J, Rooney K, Lé Q, Allen P. The RIPPER experience: a three-year evaluation of an Australian interprofessional rural health education pilot. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education 2012; 2: 230-247. DOI link
85 Anderson JE, Ateah C, Wener P, Snow W, Metge C, MacDonald L, Fricke M, Ludwig S, Davis P. Differences in pre-licensure interprofessional learning: classroom versus practice settings. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education 2011; 2(1): 3-24. DOI link
86 Anderson ES, Lennox A. The Leicester Model of interprofessional education: developing, delivering and learning from student voices for 10 years. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2009; 23(6): 557-573. DOI link, PMid:19842950
87 Stone R. Evaluating interprofessional education: the tautological need for interdisciplinary approaches. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2006; 20(3): 260-275. DOI link, PMid:16777794
This PDF has been produced for your convenience. Always refer to the live site for the Version of Record.