BMC Medical Education volume 24 , Article number: 767 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
300 Accesses
8 Altmetric
Metrics details
Comprehensive cancer care requires effective collaboration by interprofessional healthcare teams. The need to develop educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration is increasingly recognised. However, there is no agreement regarding the interprofessional competencies required for effective cancer care leading to much variation on the focus of research, planning and managing change. A scoping review was conducted to identify the current status of IPE in cancer care and to summarise the results of previous research in order to guide the development of interprofessional education in cancer care.
The JBI Scoping Review guidelines were used to guide the process of the review. A search of the available literature was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus databases from January 2012 to March 2023 to investigate IPE for health professional clinicians working in cancer care.
Of the 825 initial references and 153 studies imported for screening, a total of 28 studies were included in the final review. From those studies, seven focused on the need for IPE and interprofessional competence for oncology healthcare professionals, four reviewed existing IPE programs and 17 described the development and evaluation of interprofessional education. Findings show variation and lack of concept definitions underpinning research in IPE in cancer care settings. Variation also exists in the range of research activities in IPE, most notably related to communication, teamwork and the development of interprofessional practice. The evaluation of impact of IPE is mainly focused on health care professionals’ self-evaluation and general feedback. Impact on patient care was only evaluated in one study.
Based on the results, interprofessional education research in the field of cancer care is limited in Europe. Thus, there is a significant increase in publications in the last five years. A more systematic focus on the theoretical framework and definition of concepts would be of value. Research and programme development should be based on a shared understanding on what constitutes the interprofessional competences and IPE. Programmes to develop interprofessional practice should be developed and implemented systematically with inclusion of validated assessment methods, and evaluated and improved regularly.
Peer Review reports
Over the last decade, there has been increased interest in developing educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration and practice in the cancer care setting [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Non-communicable and life-style related diseases, including cancer, are among the biggest challenges facing EU health systems and countries, causing illness, premature death and associated social and economic costs. The number of cancer cases is expected to increase in Europe by 24% by the year 2035 [ 8 ]. As the demand in cancer care continues to increase, health systems require a workforce of educated oncology specialists and professions to provide continuity and sustainability of care. Current educational systems have yet to match all the requirements needed in cancer care [ 9 ]. Furthermore, quality cancer care requires effective collaboration by an interprofessional healthcare team [ 10 , 11 ]. People with cancer benefit when the health care professionals caring for them, not only collaborate, but strive to learn from each other [ 12 ].
Interprofessional collaboration can be defined as collaborative interaction among experts with different professional backgrounds involved in care of people with cancer and who share common goals [ 13 ]. Models vary across cancer units [ 14 ] and can involve professionals from different oncology specialties (radiation, medical and surgical oncologists) and disciplines (such as pathology), professionals from nursing and social affairs and allied health professions such as physiotherapists, psychologists, nutritionists and speech therapists [ 15 ]. Professionals from varying disciplines and professions have different knowledge bases, premises and competences for cancer care and interprofessional collaboration [ 10 , 11 ]. Interprofessional healthcare teams need to understand how to optimize the skills of their members, share case management and provide better health services to patients and the community. Such collaboration results in a strengthened health system and leads to improved health outcomes [ 12 ]. Furthermore, effective communication is important not only for patients but for the well-being of all healthcare professionals (HCPs) [ 16 ]. Thus, interprofessional practice requires effective leadership,administrative support [ 17 , 18 ] and continuous evaluation [ 18 ].
According to The Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) interprofessional education (IPE) concept can be defined as occasions when two or more professionals learn with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care [ 19 ]. The primary goal of IPE is to improve patient care by better interprofessional collaboration [ 6 ]. This concept should be reflected in the training of cancer care workforce. In oncology, the concept of multidisciplinary care is an established part of the clinical practice [ 20 ]. Training of oncology specialists and professions needs to recognise the value of interprofessional care. Interprofessional collaboration has been seen as necessary for example in precision oncology [ 21 ] and radiation oncology [ 22 ], but IPE programmes vary substantially across countries [ 23 ]. In Europe, many professional societies provide opportunities for post graduate training for medical professions. The existing training curricula of ESTRO (European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology), ESSO (European Society of Surgical Oncology and ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology), all recognise the importance of interdisciplinary knowledge and understanding among specialists in radiation oncology, cancer surgery and medical oncology. Yet, gaps exist in mutual understanding among the three disciplines on interprofessional practice [ 24 ]. Very few training programmes in the European curricula for oncology specialists involve formal interdisciplinary attachments or integrated interprofessional approach on cancer care. These deficits limit both the scope and the value of interdisciplinary collaboration and the drive for better care. Interdisciplinary dialogue also drives standards and improves communication [ 24 ].
In 2010, the World Health Organization issued a report Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice stipulating that teamwork is the first among interprofessional learning domains in a clinical setting, the others being roles and responsibilities, communication, learning and critical reflection, understanding of the needs of the patient, and ethical practice [ 12 ]. Interprofessional learning (IPL) has become a more prominent feature of health professional education at both pre-qualification and post-qualification levels. While the terms interprofessional learning (IPL) and interprofessional education (IPE) may relate to differing processes, with IPL focusing more on micro learning processes and IPE being more strongly reflective of an overarching educational framework, they tend to be used interchangeably in the existing literature [ 25 ].
Recent research relates to collaborative practice skills within clinical oncology [ 2 ] and radiation oncology [ 6 ] in determination of the impact and value of interprofessional learning [ 26 ] and interprofessional communication [ 27 ]. Among the barriers to successful implementation on interprofessional education, are the variations, both in definition and in concept, underlying research on IPE. Commonly used concepts are ‘interprofessional learning’ and ‘interprofessional education’. However, recently, the European Commission has launched the concept of ‘inter-specialty training’ to combine education and training of medical, nursing and allied health professionals in the cancer care setting [ 28 ]. The concept was defined later by McInally et al. (2023): “Inter-specialty training in oncology occurs when two or more specialties within professions collaborate by learning and interacting with each other during training in order to provide high quality cancer care” [ 29 ]. However, in order to understand the context of previous studies and to inform both training programmes and future research it was considered that a scoping review was required.
The objective of this scoping review was to describe the extent and type of evidence regarding interprofessional education (IPE) in oncology. The aim was to identify how IPE has been defined, how methodology underlying the research and implementation of the IPE has been utilised, describe the state of IPE in oncology. This review is part of a European collaborative project on inter-specialty training with the intention of providing useful training programmes across Europe and beyond (INTERACT-EUROPE).
The current review followed the scoping review methodology. This type of evidence synthesis aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept or issue. Scoping reviews can clarify key concept definitions in the literature and identify key characteristics or factors related to this concept [ 30 ]. The scoping review involved five stages: 1), Development of a scoping review protocol including research questions, and the purpose of the study; 2) Literature search on CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus data bases [ 3 ], Selection of studies, 4) Data extraction, 5) qualitative analysis and presentation of results.
The questions guiding the scoping review were:
How has IPE been defined in previous research in cancer care?
What competences have been used to guide the curriculum development of IPE in cancer care?
What teaching, learning and assessment methods have been used in previous studies?
The PRISMA checklist extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to guide the process of the review. A detailed scoping review protocol was produced including databases and subject headings [ 31 ]. MESH terms, when applicable, were used to capture all the relevant literature. In consultation with a librarian, initial search titles and abstracts ( N = 825) were reviewed by one researcher. All 153 items identified in this way were then downloaded into Covidence Systematic Review software (r) for further screening by three researchers. This process was followed by full text screening by the same researchers to identify articles that met the specified inclusion criteria.
Databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus
The PCC that featured the search: P(articipants) = oncology medical professionals (medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, oncology surgeon) and nurses, C(oncept) = inter-specialty or interprofessional education or interprofessional learning, C(ontext) = Cancer care setting
Inclusion: Quantitative, qualitative studies and systematic reviews; papers with focus on IPE/IPL, development of interprofessional collaboration and teamwork through IPE; teaching, learning and assessment methods of IPE in the context of oncology.
Exclusion: Editorials, discussion papers, focus on other healthcare professionals outside oncology setting, non-oncological professionals, only on pre-registration students, conference abstracts and proceedings.
Limits: English language, 2012–2022 original search, updated search – to April 2023.
The main search terms: clinical oncology [MESH], medical oncology [MESH], radiation oncology [MESH], surgical oncology [MESH], oncology nursing [MESH], interprofessional training, interprofessional education, interdisciplinary education, interprofessional learning, interspecialty training, inter-specialty training.
Any conflicting screening results were discussed and decisions were made collaboratively. Full-text articles were filtered and reviewed. A data extraction sheet was pre-planned to extract the key information of the studies and reviews including authors, year, country, purpose of the study or review, study or review type and method, concept used, definition of concepts, interprofessional learning or education focus and/or competences, programme characteristics, teaching, assessment, and evaluation methods used and the main results.The data were extracted by three researchers and analysed with narrative content analysis. The process, analysis and summary of results were further discussed with the full research group including all the authors.
A total of 28 studies were identified through database searching, of which one study was identified by reviewing reference lists (Fig. 1 ). There were fourteen quantitative studies, four reviews, six mixed methods studies and four qualitative studies (Table 1 ). The articles reported interprofessional educational programmes in United States ( n = 15), Canada ( n = 7), United Kingdom ( n = 3), Denmark ( n = 1), Germany ( n = 1) and Switzerland ( n = 1). Articles were published between 2012 and 2022. Nineteen of the articles were published in the last five years. From the included papers eight focused on describing the need and competences of oncology healthcare professionals [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 9 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ], three reviewed existing IPE [ 1 , 36 , 37 ] or the development and evaluation ( n = 17) of oncology interprofessional training [ 2 , 5 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. The target groups of the IPE included nurses, pharmacists, physicians (medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology and palliative care), radiographers, technicians and staff with healthcare backgrounds such as psychology, occupational therapy and other support workers (such as social workers, chaplaincy, or administration staff in contact with oncology patients).
Data retrieval
In oncology, medical, nursing and allied health professionals provide complex care in an interprofessional context [ 33 , 37 , 41 , 45 ]. To provide the best treatment and care for people with cancer, healthcare professionals are required to collaborate [ 1 , 37 ]. According to Head et al. (2022) interprofessional collaborative practice is an essential component of quality healthcare in oncology [ 42 ]. Effective interprofessional care was seen as necessary to provide optimal care for patients [ 16 ], improve the safety of care delivery [ 38 ] and better outcomes of patient care [ 16 , 32 , 38 ].
Eight of the papers [ 3 , 6 , 26 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 44 ] reported using the concept of IPE or IPL with reference to existing definition in literature. One study used the concept of “Interprofessional clinical training “ [ 38 ], one “Interdisciplinary education and training”, and one “Multidisciplinary education and training” [ 49 ], however no definition of these concepts were provided [ 36 ]. None used the concept of ‘inter-specialty or interspecialty education or training’. Nine of the included papers had some concepts described but did not include clear definitions and eleven had no mention or definition of IPE or IPL. (Appendix Table).
The concept of interprofessional education (IPE) can be seen as a means to improve health system function and delivery of care [ 34 ]. In order to achieve positive transformations in healthcare delivery, healthcare professionals (HCPs) must develop skills in interprofessional collaborative practice [ 42 ]. The principles of IPE should be embedded into every aspect of programs [ 36 ]. IPE would ideally result in greater understanding and improved communication between disciplines and professions [ 22 , 32 , 36 ], improved coordination [ 32 , 36 , 39 ], enhance team-based care management [ 32 ] and optimize more culturally affirming care [ 46 ]. Desired outcomes from IPE include also articulating one’s professional role as well as those of other professions, mutual respect, trust and willingness to collaborate [ 5 ].
In the field of oncology, increasing and building on a set of foundational knowledge, skills, and attitudes within physical, psychological, social/cultural, and spiritual domains, and collaborating with other HCPs, an early learner/novice practitioner will move towards an identity as an expert interprofessional practitioner. A competence framework on the shared set of competencies can bring professionals together, while recognizing the individuality of each profession as possessing distinct and complementary skills [ 9 ].
Of the papers describing competence framework development for interprofessional education, one focused on finding consensus on shared interprofessional competences in oncology [ 9 ], one on teamwork competences [ 32 ], one on integrative oncology [ 35 ], one on communication skills [ 36 ], one on cultural competence [ 46 ], two on paediatric oncology [ 1 , 37 ], one on palliative care in oncology [ 42 ], two on psychosocial training needs in oncology [ 4 , 33 ] and three papers described the specific needs of radiation oncology professionals [ 3 , 6 , 34 ]. Development of frameworks considered the challenges to effective coordination and the impact on patient and clinical outcomes as essential to optimal, high-quality care [ 32 ].
Four of the papers reported development competences for IPE. The development process was informed by guidance from an expert advisory panel with a Delphi study based on a literature review in two of the studies [ 9 , 35 ]. Both Esplen and colleagues [ 9 ] and Wells-Di Gregorio and colleagues [ 33 ] started from domains proposed by an expert subgroup, Esplen and colleagues [ 9 ] incorporating also focus group interviews. In the Warsi et al. (2022) study the focus group was used to determine intervention objectives [ 49 ]. The expert panels all involved oncology professionals, and one [ 35 ] included patient and public representatives. All included shared competences divided into the domains of knowledge, skills and attitudes.
Target groups included in six of ten studies multidisciplinary professionals working in general oncology [ 16 , 38 , 39 , 45 , 46 , 47 ], four in radiation oncology [ 2 , 22 , 26 , 44 ], one in gynaecology-oncology [ 43 ], one in paediatrics [ 48 ] and four in different departments within the hospital or in primary care [ 5 , 40 , 41 , 49 ]. Focus on the programmes varied. Thus, interprofessional collaboration and practice in general was included in the learning goals of the IPE in six papers [ 3 , 6 , 9 , 25 , 35 ], communication in five papers [ 9 , 16 , 26 , 35 , 39 ] and teamwork in [ 2 , 3 , 22 , 26 , 39 , 46 ] representing the main areas of interest of IPE in the cancer care setting.
Five studies described existing IPE education [ 6 , 36 , 37 , 42 , 46 ], while two focused on paediatric oncology [ 1 , 37 ] and one on interdisciplinary education [ 36 ]. Three of the studies used literature reviews to identify IPE [ 1 , 37 , 49 ] and one [ 36 ] got the information from a survey carried out by oncology physicians from different specialties.
Teaching methods varied in methods and usefulness and included face-to-face and web-based didactic content such as lectures, workshops, educational sessions, role play and reflections. Three papers concluded that there is a lack of interdisciplinary education in oncology and also highlighted the value of IPE to professionals. (Table 2 ). Teaching varied in time from a one hour-long discussion group session accompanied by online modules [ 48 ] to a year-long course [ 44 ]. The mode of delivery also varied including simulated cases and scenarios ( n = 5) [ 2 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 40 ] some specified having standardized patients [ 2 , 16 ] and others were cases discussed and developed in teams [ 22 , 26 , 40 ] and/or by use of self-reflection [ 16 ]. Five of the studies included e-learning modules [ 5 , 16 , 38 , 41 , 48 ] alone [ 38 , 41 ] or in combination with face-to-face training [ 5 , 16 , 48 ]; in the case of the other nine, all the training was face-to-face [ 2 , 22 , 26 , 38 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 ] All but one of the studies were focused on learners. One exception was based on a train-the-trainer model [ 39 ].
Of the 18 papers which described the evaluation of IPE programme (Table 3 ), 11 described also the development process [ 5 , 22 , 26 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 ].
In the evaluation of education programmes, ten used pre- and post-programme evaluation methods [ 5 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 47 , 48 ], two had mixed methods with observation and surveys [ 2 , 39 ], one used qualitative evaluation with semi-structured interviews [ 45 ] and one compared the professionals participating with participants from other education activities [ 44 ]. General feedback surveys with participant satisfaction were the most common programme evaluation surveys developed for the studies.
Studies included samples of between four [ 44 ] and 1,138 participants [ 41 ]. Three of the studies included three-month follow-ups [ 38 , 43 , 48 ] and three studies, six-month evaluation follow-ups [ 43 , 48 , 49 ] indicating that gained intervention outcomes were sustained in the long term.
The following instruments were used to evaluate the impact of the IPE: (i) Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale [ 3 , 22 , 26 ], (ii) UWE Entry Level Interprofessional Questionnaire [ 22 ], (iii) Trainee Test of Team Dynamics and Collaborative Behaviours Scale (CBS) [ 22 ], (iv) Assessment of Cultural Competence using the Intercultural Development Inventory [ 40 ], (v) Frommelt Attitudes Toward Caring of the Dying [ 40 ], (vi) Attitudes Toward Health-Care Teams Scale [ 3 ], (vii) Attitudes Toward Interdisciplinary Learning Scale [ 3 ], (viii) Self-Efficacy for Interprofessional Experiential Learning Scale and End-of-Life Professional Caregiver Survey [ 1 ], (ix) Cultural Competency Assessment (CCA), Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Development of Clinical Skills Scale (LGBT-DOCSS), (x) Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) [ 46 ].
Other studies included in the review describe Delphi methods [ 9 ] and focus group interviews [ 4 , 6 , 9 , 33 , 39 , 45 ] and instruments developed for the purpose of the study [ 5 , 38 , 39 , 43 ].
Participants had positive reactions to the programmes indicating them as a promising strategy in improving cancer care [ 38 ]. They reported high levels of satisfaction [ 26 ], including improved relations within the team [ 22 ], the acquisition of new skills [ 41 ] as well as cross-cultural competence [ 40 ]. Confidence among the participants also increased [ 41 ]. Participants reported that they would highly recommend these programmes to their colleagues [ 2 ].
Participants considered that these educational events were valuable. They helped in areas such as consolidating communication, improving dialogue [ 5 ], valuing leadership [ 42 , 44 ] and better understanding of spiritual needs [ 48 ]. These programmes also improved understanding of specific issues such as the effects of therapy on patients, the place of palliative care, management of pain and other symptoms and quality of life [ 47 ] and also a comprehension of the legal issues surrounding cancer [ 43 ].
There was s tatistically significant improvement in knowledge of teamwork principles [ 39 ] developing shared mental models, cross-monitoring situational awareness and effective conflict resolution, agreements about roles and responsibilities [ 22 ], and behaviours. Participants valued the opportunity to gain the perspective of other professions, connecting with colleagues from other disciplines practising crisis response in a simulated environment [ 2 ], and demonstrating lower levels of concern and anxiety when communicating with other professionals [ 44 ]. Some participants incorporated meditation into their daily routine by involving other family members and making it part of a “family routine” [ 45 ].
Significant improvement was also noted in increased comfort when discussing survivorship issues with patients. Significant increase in knowledge of survivorship care for five types of cancer, more confidence in ability to explain a Survivorship Care Plan (SCP), and increased comfort in discussing late effects of cancer treatment [ 47 ] were all reported. The main challenges were “breaking down the walls and being more comfortable with vulnerability” [ 45 ], and in being more open-minded after training [ 43 ]. Training increased IPE recognition of participants’ home institutions [ 42 ].
To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first scoping review summarising the existing research on interprofessional education and learning in the cancer care setting. We identified 28 articles published between January 2012 and March 2023 with a significant increase in publication in the last five years. The results indicate growing interest of interprofessional education in this setting. Interestingly, most of the studies and reviews identified were from US and Canada, showing the need for further research and collaboration in Europe.
This highlights and strengthens the need for collaborative initiatives and projects such as INTERACT-EUROPE, launched in 2022. The project is based on the EU Beating Cancer Plan 2021 in which the concept of “inter-specialty training” was launched to combine education and training of medical, nursing and allied health professionals in the cancer care setting [ 27 ]. This extends the use of specialty to also include different professionals, not only specialties among one profession [ 29 ]. The EU Beating Cancer Plan is a key strategy document for cancer care development across Europe, including the training of cancer care workforce. The concept will be used in the European training programmes. Therefore, it was important to understand its similarities and differences with most used concepts, especially, interprofessional education (IPE). One important aim of the review was to identify the concepts used in research and IPE development in the field. We found that interprofessional education [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 9 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 33 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 ] is the most common term used. However, it seems that, in the oncology setting, there is need for improving the theoretical underpinnings of education research on interprofessional education. Inter-specialty training and interprofessional education are very similar. Thus, inter-specialty as a concept could refer to education including only specialities of one profession. To enhance the interprofessional practice it is, however, important to be inclusive for all professionals of the multidisciplinary teams. From 11 studies and reviews using the IPE or IPL, only eight studies defined or described the concept. In the McInally et al., (2023) study, medical doctors and nurses from the oncology field, expressed lack of understanding of the inter-specialty training as a concept [ 29 ]. IPE may have been more familiar to participants; however, the results of the study and our review indicate that conceptual clarity is needed in future studies and development of inter-specialty training.
The illustrates the multidisciplinary context of cancer care settings and the need for professionals to work together for people with cancer to achieve optimal care outcomes [ 10 , 11 , 50 ]. Interprofessional education, bringing the professionals together, can improve interprofessional practice and collaboration. According to our results, participants evaluate IPE positively and improving the collaboration. To support the development of interprofessional practice in oncology, as described in the WHO Interprofessional Collaborative Practice framework, describing and defining the common competences for inter-specialty training programme is important [ 12 ].
The shared set of competences in oncology practice included interprofessional collaboration, recognition and understanding or needs and experiences of a person affected by cancer, person-centred care and service approach, communication skills, use of technology in care delivery and understanding of one’s own limits and ability for self-care. James et al., (2016) also highlighted the values and ethics, roles and responsibilities [ 2 ] and Koo et al., (2014) attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration, in addition to communication competences and teamwork capabilities [ 3 ]. The above-mentioned are also key elements of interprofessional education. The aim is not for learners to master all the disciplines and professional expertise, but more about understanding the expertise of different professions and what they need to know about the specialty or the profession to work efficiently together [ 2 ]. Thus, our review provides information also on the common foci of the programmes in addition to more general interprofessional practice and team work focus; care and symptom management [ 2 , 22 ], paediatric oncology (1, 36, 47 ), safety [ 38 , 39 ], psycho-social oncology and psycho-oncology [ 4 , 5 , 33 , 43 ], palliative and end-of-life care [ 1 , 40 , 43 ], spiritual care [ 48 ], integrative oncology [ 35 ], survivorship [ 41 , 47 ] and well-being at work of healthcare professionals [ 45 ]. Although, our review focused on oncology, findings on theoretical underpinnings of the studies and programmes, teaching methods and evaluation of IPE could be used on other specialties also.
A variety of methods was used on the IPE. The content and focus and learning goals of IPE, and what constitutes interprofessional education varied between the studies and reviews. This has been highlighted also as common to IPE by the Committee on Measuring the Impact of Interprofessional Education on Collaborative Practice and Patient Outcomes (2015) [ 51 ]. Programme evaluation was mostly limited on participant satisfaction and feedback on delivery of the education. The evaluation methods mostly used in evaluation of the impact of education interventions were knowledge tests, behaviour change, confidence, comfort, intention to change practice and self-assessment of preparedness, Previously validated instruments were used in five studies [ 3 , 22 , 26 , 40 , 46 ], but it was common to use survey instruments developed for the study. Impact on patient care was not often measured. In one study patient incidence reports were included [ 14 ]. This result demonstrates a need for more systematic use of previously developed evaluation and assessment methods when appropriate, but also extent the evaluation of impact on care.
A limitation of this study is that only publications in English were included. Neglecting the potential data of studies from non-English speaking countries can have an impact on the results. Furthermore, we used broad subject headings with Boolean operators in search of literature, but it is possible that we did not find all the papers published. To decrease this risk, a professional librarian was consulted in the literature search process. We did not include studies focusing only on one specific cancer type, and this also needs to be seen as a limitation. As is common in scoping reviews, the quality of publications was not assessed, and we included papers with a variety of methods in the review. This needs to be recognised in interpreting the results. Thus, this review approach produced more rich data for describing the current state of IPE in cancer care.
Based on the review, research on interprofessional education in the field of cancer care is limited. The need for interprofessional education is well recognised, yet provision and research in this field needs to be increased to enhance quality, person-centred care for people affected by cancer and efficient delivery of cancer care. In the future research would benefit from a more systematic approach to underpinning the theoretical framework on IPE. The evaluation of impact of IPE is currently mainly focused on HCPs perspective. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact on patient care. It is also evident that research and IPE programme development is very limited in the European context and therefore research is needed to strengthen the IPE development in Europe.
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. Clinical Trial Number: N/A.
Interprofessional Education
Interprofessional Learning
Healthcare Professional
Green SB, Markaki A. Interprofessional palliative care education for pediatric oncology clinicians: an evidence-based practice review. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):797.
Article Google Scholar
James TA, Page JS, Sprague J. Promoting interprofessional collaboration in oncology through a teamwork skills simulation programme. J Interprof Care. 2016;30(4):539–41.
Koo K, et al. Exploring attitudes of Canadian radiation oncologists, radiation therapists, physicists, and oncology nurses regarding interprofessional teaching and learning. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29(2):350–7.
Laffan AJ, Daniels J, Osborn M. Profiling the psychological training and support needs of Oncology Staff, and evaluating the effectiveness of a level 2 psychological support training program workshop. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2015;33(6):686–702.
McLeod D, et al. The Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education (IPODE) project: perceived outcomes of an approach to healthcare professional education. J Interprof Care. 2014;28(3):254–9.
Schultz OA, et al. Qualitative study of Interprofessional Collaboration in Radiation Oncology Clinics: is there a need for further education? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(3):661–9.
Yeh PH, et al. Implementing web-based ping-pong-type e-communication to enhance staff satisfaction, multidisciplinary cooperation, and clinical effectiveness: a SQUIRE-compliant quality-improving study. Med (Baltim). 2016;95(44):e5236.
Mission EU. Cancer. European Commission 2020. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/eu-mission-cancer_en .
Esplen MJ, Hunter J, Maheu C, et al. De Souza interprofessional practice cancer competency framework. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(2):797–808.
Chiew KL, et al. A narrative synthesis of the quality of cancer care and development of an integrated conceptual framework. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018;27(6):e12881.
Denton E, Conron M. Improving outcomes in lung cancer: the value of the multidisciplinary health care team. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:137–44.
Google Scholar
World Health Organisation [WHO]. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice. 2010. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70185/1/WHO_HRH_HPN_10.3_eng.pdf .
Siekkinen M, et al. Work empowerment among cancer care professionals: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):502.
Bunnell CA, et al. Models of multidisciplinary cancer care: physician and patient perceptions in a comprehensive cancer center. J Oncol Pract. 2010;6(6):283–8.
Prades J, et al. Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes. Health Policy. 2015;119(4):464–74.
Papadakos CT, et al. Effectiveness of a Multiprofessional, Online and Simulation-based difficult conversations training program on self-perceived competence of Oncology Healthcare Provider trainees. J Cancer Educ. 2021;36(5):1030–8.
Moilanen T et al. Leadership and administrative support for interprofessional collaboration in a cancer center. J Health Organ Manag. 2020;ahead-of-print.
Moilanen T, et al. Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the pre-requisites and realisation of interprofessional collaboration in cancer care. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2020;29(1):e13197.
The Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education [CAIPE]. INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION. Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow – a review. 2002 https://www.caipe.org/resources/publications/caipe-publications/caipe-2002-interprofessional-education-today-yesterday-tomorrow-barr-h .
Benstead K, et al. Multidisciplinary training of cancer specialists in Europe. Eur J Cancer. 2017;83:1–8.
Chamala S, et al. Building a precision oncology workforce by multidisciplinary and case-based learning. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):75.
Gillan C et al. (2015). Team-based clinical simulation in radiation medicine: value to attitudes and perceptions of interprofessional collaboration. J Radiother Pract. 2015; 14, 114–25.
Herath C, et al. A comparative study of interprofessional education in global health care: a systematic review. Med (Baltim). 2017;96(38):e7336.
O’Higgins N, et al. Interdisciplinary training for cancer specialists: the time has come. Radiother Oncol. 2018;129(3):415–6.
Thistlethwaite J, et al. Learning outcomes for interprofessional education (IPE): literature review and synthesis. J Interprof Care. 2010;24(5):503–13.
Ball B, et al. Radiotherapy-specific interprofessional learning through simulation. Radiography (Lond). 2021;27(1):187–92.
Buller H, et al. Advancing interprofessional education in communication. Palliat Support Care. 2021;19(6):727–32.
EU Beating Cancer Plan. Eur Comm 2021. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf .
McInally W, et al. Like frying multiple Eggs in one Pan: a qualitative study exploring the understanding of inter-speciality training in Cancer Care. J Cancer Educ. 2023;38(3):1098.
Munn Z, et al. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):950–2.
Peters MDJ, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021;19(1):3–10.
Chollette V, et al. Teamwork competencies for interprofessional cancer care in multiteam systems: a narrative synthesis. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(4):617–25.
Wells-Di Gregorio S, et al. Development of a psychosocial oncology core curriculum for multidisciplinary education and training: initial content validation using the modified Delphi Method. Psychooncology. 2022;31(1):130–8.
Winter IP, Ingledew PA, Golden DW. Interprofessional Education in Radiation Oncology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(7):964–71.
Witt CM, et al. Education Competencies for Integrative Oncology-Results of a systematic review and an International and Interprofessional Consensus Procedure. J Cancer Educ. 2022;37(3):499–507.
Akthar AS, et al. Interdisciplinary Oncology Education: a National Survey of trainees and Program directors in the United States. J Cancer Educ. 2018;33(3):622–6.
Topperzer MK, et al. Unmet need for interprofessional education in paediatric cancer: a scoping review. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(10):3627–37.
Aebersold ML, et al. Evaluation of an Interprofessional Training Program to Improve Cancer Drug Therapy Safety. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021;17(10):e1551–8.
Bunnell CA, et al. High performance teamwork training and systems redesign in outpatient oncology. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(5):405–13.
Halm MA, et al. Broadening cultural sensitivity at the end of life: an interprofessional education program incorporating critical reflection. Holist Nurs Pract. 2012;26(6):335–49.
Harvey A, et al. Addressing the care of Cancer survivors: evaluation of an online training for Interprofessional Learners. J Oncol Navig Surviv. 2020;11(5):144–7.
Head B, et al. Opening eyes to real interprofessional education: results of a national faculty development initiative focused on interprofessional education in oncology palliative care. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(5):698–705.
Kolben T, et al. Evaluation of an interdisciplinary palliative care inhouse training for professionals in gynecological oncology. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297(3):767–73.
Lavender C, et al. Fostering a culture of interprofessional education for radiation therapy and medical dosimetry students. Med Dosim. 2014;39(1):50–3.
Nissim R, et al. A qualitative study of a Compassion, Presence, and Resilience Training for Oncology Interprofessional Teams. J Holist Nurs. 2019;37(1):30–44.
Pratt-Chapman ML. Learning outcomes of Diverse Oncology professionals after the TEAM Cultural Competency Training. J Cancer Educ. 2022;37(3):662–7.
Shayne M, et al. The integration of cancer survivorship training in the curriculum of hematology/oncology fellows and radiation oncology residents. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(2):167–72.
Szilagyi C, et al. Interprofessional spiritual care education in pediatric hematology-oncology: a pilot study. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2022;69(3):e29515.
Warsi A, et al. Leadership, leading, and influencing change in Cancer Education: Development and Assessment of a pilot Leadership Workshop in Cancer Education for Interdisciplinary Healthcare Staff. J Cancer Educ. 2023;38(2):697–712.
Prades J, Borras JM. Shifting sands: adapting the multidisciplinary team model to technological and organizational innovations in cancer care. Future Oncol. 2014;10(13):1995–98.
Committee on Measuring the Impact of Interprofessional Education on Collaborative Practice and patient outcomes; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine. Measuring the Impact of Interprofessional Education on Collaborative Practice and patient outcomes. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); December 15, 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338356/ .
Download references
The authors wish to thank the European Commission for funding this study conducted in the context of the INTERACTEUROPE Project (Grant Agreement No. 101056995). This review was conducted in collaboration with European Oncology Nursing Society, European Society of Surgical Oncology and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union, EU4Health Programme 2021–2027 as part of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan under Grant Agreement no. 101056995. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or HaDEA. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Authors and affiliations.
Turku University of Applied Sciences, Joukahaisenkatu 3, 20520, Turku, Finland
Virpi Sulosaari
Cyprus University of Technology, Archiepiskopou Kyprianou 30, Limassol, Cyprus
Nikolina Dodlek
Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
Andreas Brandl
Cancer Centre University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
Johan De Munter
Dept of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
Jesper Grau Eriksen
The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Wendy McInally
School of Medicine, University College, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
Niall O’Higgins
Dept of Oncology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, College Rd, GL53 7AN, Cheltenham, RN, UK
Kim Benstead
School of Nursing, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Celia Díez de los Ríos de la Serna
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
VS conceived the review and led the preparation of the review plan, design, data collection, analysis and drafting of the manuscript. All authors participated in planning the review protocol. VS, CDRS, ND conducted the data retrieval, data extraction and analysis. All participated in result synthesis and manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to Virpi Sulosaari .
Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Sulosaari, V., Dodlek, N., Brandl, A. et al. Interprofessional education in cancer care – a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 24 , 767 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05669-8
Download citation
Received : 09 July 2023
Accepted : 18 June 2024
Published : 16 July 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05669-8
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 1472-6920
How to conduct a bibliometric content analysis: guidelines and contributions of content co‐occurrence or co‐word literature reviews, organizational networking processes in turbulent environments: strategic sensemaking perspective, decoupling in international business: the ‘new’ vulnerability of globalization and mnes’ response strategies, world social report 2023, decoupling in international business: evidence, drivers, impact, and implications for ib research, the impact of institutional formation on firms’ strategic choices in knowledge development, absorptive capacity and vertical integration, russia–ukraine crisis: china’s belt road initiative at the crossroads, an integrative literature review of social entrepreneurship research: mapping the literature and future research directions, understanding systemic disruption from the covid-19-induced semiconductor shortage for the auto industry, the future of global supply chains in a post-covid-19 world, related papers.
Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers
About the standards.
The Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education are designed to:
The Standards were released in December 2020 and went into effect on January 1, 2022, replacing the Standards for Commercial Support: Standards to Ensure Independence in CME Activities.
Accredited CME providers need to comply with the Standards that are applicable to their organizations by January 1, 2022.
The Standards have been adopted by accrediting bodies representing multiple health professions and the principles are incorporated into international guidelines for continuing professional development for health professionals.
Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, methods and value of storytelling for stakeholders in post-disaster tourism scenarios.
ISSN : 1463-6689
Article publication date: 8 July 2024
Issue publication date: 23 July 2024
The tourism sector continues to be an engine for economic growth for communities (Jenkins, 1980), and in post-disaster scenarios, destination can be overwhelmed with challenges, particularly for the local community. However, it is essential to seek the most effective path of recovery for individuals and communities. Gaps in contemporary post-disaster literature remain, as the focus often centres on infrastructure and economic developments (Cox and Perry, 2011). This paper aims to address such gaps by offering new ideas around the value of recovery focusing more on the victims, their stories and the role of tourism.
As a theoretical paper, the applied method is described as a convenient approach to data collection and analysis. The methodological reasoning is down to the selection and examination of sources used to establish new theoretical understandings. The study applies a pragmatic research approach to embrace the spectrum of views that are present within the constructivist and positivist. The pragmatic philosophical approach supports multi-disciplinary studies and ensures a more holistic consideration of social conditions is embraced.
This paper offers new knowledge and ideas for post-disaster recovery scenarios. It presents a model that incorporates a range of (traditional, digital and immersive) methods and platforms in which stories can be shared and presented. It argues that allowing victims to share stories in different formats could support rehabilitation while also providing stronger, powerful narratives for tourists, leading to more effective tourism experiences.
Disasters leave individuals and communities in devastation and with potentially lifelong trauma. In rehabilitation of victims is a vital ingredient to the recovery of a destination and its social fabric. This research offers new ideas around the use of digital technologies to generate stories of value that not only support victims of disasters but also offer visitors the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of challenges and difficulties of dark places, often seen as a key part of the visitor experience and motive to places of tragedy.
Wright, D.W.M. and Ben Salah, M. (2024), "Methods and value of storytelling for stakeholders in post-disaster tourism scenarios", Foresight , Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 453-469. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-08-2023-0168
Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited
All feedback is valuable.
Please share your general feedback
Contact Customer Support
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.
What kinds of literature reviews are written? Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified.
This is why the literature review as a research method is more relevant than ever. ... precise, and trustworthy. As with all research, the value of an academic review depends on what was done, what ... These terms should be based on words and concepts that are directly related to the research question. Depending on the aim of the review and the ...
Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review. An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the "journal-as-conversation" metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: "Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event.
Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research. There are five key steps to writing a literature review: Search for relevant literature. Evaluate sources. Identify themes, debates and gaps.
A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories.A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem.
Literature Review is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.. Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:
A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the ...
What kinds of literature reviews are written? Narrative Review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified.
A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories.A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that ...
This is probably the most obvious value of the literature review. Once a researcher has determined an area to work with for a research project, a search of relevant information sources will help determine what is already known about the topic and how extensively the topic has already been researched.
Importance of literature review in research: The importance of literature review in scientific manuscripts can be condensed into an analytical feature to enable the multifold reach of its significance. It adds value to the legitimacy of the research in many ways: Provides the interpretation of existing literature in light of updated ...
Tips on how to write a review of related literature in research. Given that you will probably need to produce a number of these at some point, here are a few general tips on how to write an effective review of related literature 2. Define your topic, audience, and purpose: You will be spending a lot of time with this review, so choose a topic ...
Hello Kenn - Welcome to the forum! A review of related - and preferably recent - literature is meant to set your research in the context of what is currently known about the topic and to establish that what you have to offer is novel, something different from what has been already attempted.The review also reassures the referees that you are familiar with current developments in your ...
A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research. The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research. It should give a theoretical base for the ...
A literature review must do these things: be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing; synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known; identify areas of controversy in the literature; formulate questions that need further research
A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study.
A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
A review of related literature (RRL) is a part of the research report that examines significant studies, theories, and concepts published in scholarly sources on a particular topic. An RRL includes 3 main components: A short overview and critique of the previous research.
Coming to your question, pinpointing exactly how an RRL would help the accuracy and validity of your research is a bit difficult without knowing the field of your research. However, broadly, as regards accuracy , a comprehensive RRL will ensure that your hypothesis is formulated considering all that is known about the topic and that the ...
A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing research, studies, articles, books, and other relevant sources on a specific topic or subject. It serves as a foundational step in the research process, helping researchers understand the current state of knowledge, identify gaps in the literature, and establish a context ...
Best practices for conducting a narrative synthesis in a systematic literature review involve several key steps: defining a clear review question and objectives, developing a detailed protocol ...
Over the last decade, there has been increased interest in developing educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration and practice in the cancer care setting [1,2,3,4,5,6,7].Non-communicable and life-style related diseases, including cancer, are among the biggest challenges facing EU health systems and countries, causing illness, premature death and associated social and ...
In addition, in this research, relevant literature were reviewed, and progresses in the blades of wind turbines in different sectors were comprehensively assessed through the classification of previous studies and combining numerical and analytical studies. ... Related Research . People also read lists articles that other readers of this ...
Tilbe Göksun is a Professor and the director of the Language and Cognition Laboratory at Koç University, Department of Psychology. Her research explores the interactions between language and thought across different age groups and populations. She focuses on interdisciplinary, multi-method, multimodal, cross-linguistic research, and multilevel analyses, employing methods and perspectives ...
Purpose Global value chains (GVCs) are facing unprecedented pressures arising from structural changes in the global economy and exogenous shocks including military conflicts and the aftermath of COVID-19. Considering the importance of value chain analysis in the current environment, the purpose of the study is to provide an up-to-date overarching global value chain literature review study that ...
Standards are designed to ensure that accredited continuing education serves the needs of patients and the public, is based on valid content, and is free from commercial influence.
Gaps in contemporary post-disaster literature remain, as the focus often centres on infrastructure and economic developments (Cox and Perry, 2011). This paper aims to address such gaps by offering new ideas around the value of recovery focusing more on the victims, their stories and the role of tourism.,As a theoretical paper, the applied ...