Interprofessional identity

Interprofessional identity matters because healthcare faces complex and interconnected challenges: improving care, promoting health, reducing costs, supporting providers and advancing equity. No single profession can meet these demands alone, yet true collaboration remains difficult to achieve. A key reason lies in how we educate future professionals. When students are trained in isolation, they often carry that separation into practice. While developing a strong professional identity is essential, the full value of each discipline only emerges through partnership. This is also why interprofessional competence is not enough. It involves knowledge, skills and attitudes related to interprofessional collaboration, but it does not create a shared purpose or sense of belonging. Interprofessional identity adds that deeper connection. It ties individuals to a broader community, strengthens commitment to working together and reinforces the belief that combining diverse strengths leads to better care. When I say interprofessional identity, I do not just mean being a team player or referring to a team identity. In healthcare education and practice, collaboration across professions is emphasized: interprofessional education (IPE), interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and interprofessional learning outcomes. What anchors these efforts? The answer is not just interprofessional competence; it is also interprofessional identity. The term is gaining traction, but it often means different things to different researchers. This nuance often gets lost and this paper is intended to define and clarify 'interprofessional identity' as a social construct, not to provide an exhaustive overview of all research related to it. Decades of research remain necessary to understand fully how interprofessional identity forms and motivates behaviours that improve healthcare collaboration and outcomes. Long-term research should include diverse populations to capture how identity formation potentially varies across different social groups, ensuring equity and inclusion in understanding motivations and behaviours. Clarifying what interprofessional identity is makes it possible to study how it develops in education and how it translates into collaborative behaviour in practice. The definition of interprofessional identity draws on Tajfel's concept of social identity. The construct validity of social identity in general, independent of identity group, was first confirmed by Cameron and later replicated by Obst and White.1 This same dimensionality, as related to interprofessional identity as a social identity, has been confirmed and replicated since 2020 in several countries across the world. Interprofessional identity is part of an individual's self-concept that stems from knowledge of membership of an interprofessional group, along with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership. This definition highlights that interprofessional identity is not only cognitive ("I belong") but also affective ("this matters to me"). This emotional factor drives motivation, whereas the self-concept ("how should I behave as group member") determines the behavioural orientation of the individual. Only a few researchers link interprofessional identity to deep personal identification with the interprofessional group as a meaningful social entity.2 This inconsistency hampers research, education and integrated care. Clarifying these aspects prevents conceptual confusion and enables more precise research, targeted educational strategies and reliable measurement. Consider two researchers: one measures "feeling part of an interprofessional team", another focuses on "internalized interprofessional values". Are they studying the same thing? Not necessarily. Valuing collaboration does not mean someone identifies as part of an interprofessional group. Interprofessional identity is a stable social self-concept, distinct from attitudes or separate cognitions. Professional identity can begin forming before formal entry into a profession, reflecting the psychological nature of social identity. This early stage, known as anticipatory socialization, involves imagining future group membership and is influenced by factors such as family and social media. Because the identity group is not yet the main source of information, first-year students often form early beliefs that are autostereotypical. These beliefs may hinder interprofessional identity development when they conflict with collaborative values. This way, this might reduce the inclusion of other professions. Although some evidence supports this view, more research is needed. Interprofessional identity is considered superordinate to professional identity because it includes all professions. Although professional and interprofessional identities are distinct social constructs with different group compositions and purposes, they are likely to influence each other. For example, some studies comparing interprofessional identity across similar professions have found that one specific profession tends to report a lower sense of interprofessional belonging compared to others. This pattern is consistent across several countries and observed in both students and practitioners of this specific profession. This is not just theoretical. It has real-world implications. Educators may target teamwork skills and assume they are fostering interprofessional identity development. Policymakers may rely on data that does not measure what they think it does. A student might score high on one tool and low on another, because the tools measure different constructs. That's where construct validity becomes essential. If we want to support interprofessional identity development, we need to clarify what it is, what it is not and how to measure it reliably. Only with such clarity can education design effective programs. Policymakers also need this clarity to make informed decisions. This is essential to truly foster interprofessional collaboration and support a shift towards a more interprofessional culture. Such a shift depends on facilitating interprofessional identity formation among large numbers of students and practitioners. Interprofessional identity is increasingly seen as essential to collaboration and overcoming social silos in healthcare.2 But conceptual ambiguity remains. Multiple definitions and frameworks are used interchangeably, slowing research and limiting practical application. What's needed is conceptual clarity grounded in theory and evidence. Culture may influence how interprofessional identity forms by shaping how professionals interact. Proximity during social interaction is an important antecedent of entitativity, or the degree to which a mixed-profession group is seen as a real social entity. Since proximity is culturally determined, it might affect how and at what pace interprofessional identity develops by influencing perceived groupness. This perception is crucial for identity formation, regardless of individuals' willingness to identify with the mixed-profession group. Interprofessional identity activation depends on contextual cues or triggers, many of which are probably culturally learned. Although some triggers may vary by culture, others reflect interprofessional collaboration as a shared global practice. Despite differences in expression, the core psychological structure remains stable, as supported by construct validation studies worldwide, highlighting the importance of adapting educational and collaborative approaches to local norms without compromising the construct itself. EPIT provides a robust psychological framework, building on but going beyond social identity theory and identity theory.1 It defines interprofessional identity through three core dimensions: interprofessional belonging (feeling part of and being interested in an interprofessional group), interprofessional commitment (valuing and emotionally investing in that group) and interprofessional beliefs (endorsing interprofessional collaboration as key to good care). These dimensions capture both the structure and experience of interprofessional identity. Crucially, EPIT distinguishes attitudes from identity, professional and interprofessional. Although attitudes may influence social identity formation, they are not part of it. This helps avoid confusing enthusiasm for teamwork with a stable interprofessional self-concept. EPIT positions interprofessional identity as a superordinate social construct relative to the profession-specific professional identity, defined by its durability, psychological grounding and a shared, internalized sense of 'us' that meaningfully predicts behaviour.3 The Extended Professional Identity Scale (EPIS) operationalizes EPIT.4 This validated tool has demonstrated strong construct validity through repeated confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) across countries, professions and career stages.1 These analyses confirm that the three EPIT dimensions form a coherent structure, separate from profession-specific professional identities. That separation is critical. People hold multiple social identities (professional, interprofessional and others), which are activated by situational cues or "identity triggers" in a certain context. When multiple social identities are triggered, people usually act based on the identity with the greatest emotional significance in the moment. This process is known as "identity hierarchy". When social identities are activated and complementary, they coexist without inner conflict. To influence behaviour, the beliefs linked to each social identity must be specific enough to guide congruent action. EPIT addresses this, and early evidence suggests that stronger interprofessional identity predicts a greater likelihood of acting in support of interprofessional goals.1, 4 This theoretical precision allows researchers and educators to measure and support interprofessional identity development using meaningful, validated data, rather than relying on vague proxies such as collaboration satisfaction or attitudes as indicators of interprofessional identity. Other models, like Khalili's Dual Identity Model,5 highlight tensions between professional and interprofessional identities. However, this model treats professional and interprofessional identities as a unified construct. This contradicts core identity theory, which perceives these as distinct, context-sensitive social identities. Treating interrelated factors as one obscures how identity and its processes connect. We should distinguish the construct itself, the learning context where it develops and the practice context where it drives motivation through identity-behaviour congruence. Though professional and interprofessional identities may be co-activated, they do not fuse into one. Yet dual identity is measured with a single multidimensional measurement instrument, which risks treating these identities as a merged identity, a "dual identity". If our multiple social identities were truly one and the same entity, it would be more appropriate to speak of a "multiple identity" (a term that also lacks specificity) rather than a "dual identity". However, both EPIT and Cameron's Three-Factor Model of Social Identity demonstrate that a social identity is most accurately described through three dimensions.1, 2 The Dual Identity Scale (DIS) also includes attitudes within its structure and lacks a measure of interprofessional beliefs.5 Both limit its predictive value regarding identity-driven behaviour. More importantly, DIS has not been validated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). It relies only on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which cannot confirm the theoretical structure. Without CFA, we cannot be confident the scale actually measures what it claims to. This undermines its utility for research, education and practice. Understanding the difference between multiple social identities and not merging them into a single construct is essential. EPIT respects this distinction, showing how distinct social identities are activated, how a social identity like an interprofessional identity guides congruent behaviour, what interprofessional identity should predict and how it can be strengthened through targeted interventions. If we truly want to foster interprofessional identity, we must move beyond enthusiasm for teamwork, attitudes and shared values. We must focus on interprofessional identity as a psychologically grounded self-concept, a social construct anchored in interprofessional belonging, interprofessional commitment and interprofessional beliefs. These dimensions help individuals feel part of an interprofessional community. With this clarity, we can meaningfully measure, compare and support interprofessional identity development, creating more integrated, collaborative healthcare systems. Interprofessional identity is a clearly defined and validated psychological construct. It offers a solid foundation for studying how it develops, what identity-congruent behaviours of individuals it predicts and how it supports collaboration and improves outcomes. However, the term is often used inconsistently, with researchers referring to different or overlapping constructs as if they are the same. This weakens validity, undermines conclusions and slows progress. Like other psychological constructs such as attitude, emotion and motivation, interprofessional identity should have a consistent definition to allow meaningful comparison. Although culture influences how identity is expressed, it does not change the underlying construct. A shared, validated definition is essential for promoting interprofessional collaboration, breaking down professional silos and improving patient care. Jan-Jaap Reinders: Conceptualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.