Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Interprofessional education (IPE) prepares pre-licensure health sciences students to deliver team-based, patient-centered care, but its effectiveness depends on students' readiness to engage. In 2019, the Program for Interprofessional Practice, Education and Research at McMaster University, launched a quality improvement initiative to assess health sciences students' IPE readiness. This study characterized students’ IPE readiness at program entry from 2019 to 2024, spanning a novel transition from in-person (pre-COVID) to online (during COVID) and hybrid (post-COVID) delivery formats. Methods This repeated cross-sectional study invited incoming first-year health sciences students to complete a voluntary survey, including demographic questions and the Likert-version Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS). Descriptive statistics characterized the sample. Total and subscale RIPLS scores were compared across program specializations, disciplines and time periods using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Analyses were conducted using STATA 18.0 B/E, with p < .05 considered statistically significant. Results Two thousand fifty-six students completed at least one RIPLS subscale between 2019 and 2024. Respondents had a mean (SD) age of 22.1 (4.4) years and were mainly women-identifying ( n = 1494, 72.7%). Graduate Professional students demonstrated a high IPE readiness compared to Undergraduate General ( p < .001) and Undergraduate Professional students ( p < .001). Students from Social Work, Midwifery, Nursing and Bachelor of Health Sciences reported lower RIPLS scores compared to the other disciplines (all p < .05). Total RIPLS scores were lowest during COVID compared to the pre- and post-COVID periods (all p < .001). Conclusions This study provides insights into IPE perceptions across six years. These findings can inform IPE programs in refining their IPE offerings to better align students’ learning needs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: