Assessment of learning in Interprofessional Education in Health Higher Education: protocol for an integrative literature review on pedagogical approaches
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15343/0104-7809.202549e16872024PKeywords:
Interprofessional Education, Educational Assessment, Teaching, Higher Education, Interprofessional RelationsAbstract
Interprofessional Education (IPE) is defined as situations in which professionals or students from two or more different fields learn with and about each other, with the aim of improving collaboration and the quality of healthcare services provided. When introducing IPE into teaching experiences, it is also necessary to address the assessment of learning within this process. One of the critical issues in assessing learning in IPE is the pedagogical approach adopted by the educational program. In general, such approaches are either not explicitly stated or, when they are, are not reflected in the proposed assessment methods. The objective of this study is to identify and analyze, through an Integrative Literature Review (ILR), the pedagogical approaches used in the assessment of learning in IPE experiences in Health Higher Education. The ILR is a methodology that allows for the rigorous identification and synthetic evaluation of studies available on the topic under investigation. The review question for this study was developed using the strategy that includes Population, Interest, and Context. The ILR methodology will follow six steps: formulation of the research question, definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data collection and literature search strategies, rigorous evaluation of the selected studies, analysis and synthesis of the findings, and presentation and interpretation of the results. This ILR aims to identify the predominance of traditional assessments that limit interprofessional learning and to emphasize the importance of integrating formative and summative assessment methods into the teaching process. The description of pedagogical approaches in this ILR may contribute to the development of effective assessment practices in IPE, guiding educators and academic administrators. The results are expected to promote more effective pedagogical policies aligned with the demands of Health Higher Education.
Downloads
References
Reeves S. Porque precisamos da educação interprofissional para um cuidado efetivo e seguro. Rev. Interface (Botucatu). 2016; 20(56): 185-196. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/icse/a/VrvpZyszPQ6hrVp7SFhj6XF/abstract/?lang=pt. Acesso em: 16 jan. 2024.
Souza SV. Desafios da formação docente em cursos de enfermagem no norte do Brasil na perspectiva da Educação Interprofissional. Rev. Interface (Botucatu). 2023;27:e220171. DOI https://doi.org/10.1590/interface.220171.
Dyess AL, Brown JS, Brown ND, Flautt KM, Barnes LJ. Impact of interprofessional education on students of the health professions: a systematic review. J. Educ. Eval. Health Professions. 2019. DOI https://doi:10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.33.
Costa MV, Patrício KP, Câmara AMCS, Azevedo GD, Batista SHSS. Pró-Saúde e PET-Saúde como espaços de educação interprofissional. Rev. Interface (Botucatu). 2016; 2015;19 (Supl 1):709-20. DOI https//doi:10.1590/1807-57622014.0994.
Santos LC, Simonetti JP, Cyrino APA. Educação interprofissional na graduação de Medicina e Enfermagem em prática na atenção primária à saúde: perspectiva dos estudantes. Rev. Interface (Botucatu). 2018; 22(Suppl 2):1601-1611.
Alencar TOS, Coelho MMP, Oliveira SS, Souza MQB, Silva SS, Souza CS, et al. Metodologias ativas na educação interprofissional em saúde. Práticas e Cuidados: Rev. Saúde Coletiva. 2020; 1: 1-6.
Oandasan I, Reeves S. Key elements of interprofessional education. Part 2: factors, processes and outcomes. J. Interprof. Care. 2005;19(Suppl):39-48. DOI https//10.1080/13561820500081703.
Sordi MRL, Ludke M. Da avaliação da aprendizagem à avaliação institucional: aprendizagens necessárias. Avaliação: Rev. Avaliação Educ. Super. 2009; 2(14): 313-336.
Hoffmann J. Avaliação Mito & Desafio. 46ª ed. Rio Grande do Sul: Mediação; 2019.
Luckesi CC. Avaliação da aprendizagem: componentes do ato pedagógico. 1º ed. São Paulo: Cortez; 2011.
Libâneo JC. Didática. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Cortez; 2018.
Diggele CV, Roberts C, Burgess A, Mellis C. Interprofessional education: tips for design and implementation. BMC Med. Educ. 2020;20(Suppl 2):455. DOI https//10.1186/s12909-020-02286-z.
Thistlethwaite J. Interprofessional education: a review of context, learning and the research agenda. Med Educ. 2012 Jan; 46(1): 58-70.
Grymonpre RE. Faculty development in interprofessional education (IPE): Reflections from an IPE coordinator. J. Taibah Univ. Med. Sci. 2016;11(6): 510-159.
Almoghirah H, Nazar H, Lling J. Assessment tools in pre-licensure interprofessional education: A systematic review, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis. Med. Educ. 2021; 55(7):795-807. DOI 10.1111/medu.14453.
Hean S, Verde C, Anderson E, Morris D, João C, Pitt R, et al. The contribution of theory to the design, delivery and evaluation of interprofessional curricula. BEME Guide. 2018; 40(6): 542-558.
Mizukami MGN. Ensino: as abordagens do processo. Rio de Janeiro: EPU; 2019.
Tabile AF, Jacometo MCS. Fatores influenciadores no processo de aprendizagem: um estudo de caso. Rev. Psicopedagogia. 2017; 34(103): 75-86.
Vigotsky LS. Pensamento e linguagem. 3º ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes; 1998.
Craddock D, O’Halloran C, McPherson K, Hean S, Hammick M. A top-down approach impedes the use of theory? Interprofessional educational leaders’ approaches to curriculum development and the use of learning theory. J. Interprof. Care. 2013; 27(1): 65-72.
Skinner BF. Tecnologia do ensino. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Herder; 2006.
Batista NA, Batista SHSS. Educação interprofissional na formação em Saúde: tecendo redes de práticas e saberes. Interface (Botucatu). 2016; 20(56):202-204. DOI https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622015.0388.
Sousa LMM, Vieira-Marques C, Severino S, Antunes V. A metodologia de revisão integrativa da literatura em enfermagem. Rev. Investig. Enferm. 2017; 17-26.
Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005 Dec; 52(5): 546-553. DOI 10.1111/j.1365- 2648.2005.03621.x.
Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Implementing PRISMA-P: recommendations for prospective authors. Systematic Reviews. 2016; 5(15).
Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E. Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice. 4ª ed. Wolters Kluwer; 2019.
Institute Joanna Briggs. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Data extraction. Emille Francis: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2022.
Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM). Levels of evidence. 2009. Disponível em: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/ levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine-levels-of-evidence-march-2009#:~:text=The%20CEBM%20’Levels%20of%20 Evidence,process%20for%20different%20question%20types.&text=Analysis%20based%20on%20limited%20alternatives,analyses%20 incorporating%20clinically%20sensible%20variations. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2023.
Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024. DOI https://doi.org/10.46658/ JBIMES-24-01.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. 2006; 3(2): 77-101.
31. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372(71). DOI 10.1136/bmj.n71.
Al-Anqoudi M, Ada MB, McQuistin S, Ntarmos N, Parkinson J, Moshfeghi Y. Traditional vs non-traditional assessment activities as learning indicators of student learning: teachers’ perceptions. In: 2023 IEEE Learning with MOOCS (LWMOOCS); 2023 Out 23-25; Cambridge, MA, USA. IEEE; 2023. p. 1-6. DOI 10.1109/LWMOOCS58322.2023.10305928.
Quansah F. Traditional or performance assessment: what is the right way in assessing learners? Res Humanit Soc Sci. 2018;8(1):15-22.
Guraya SY, Barr H. The effectiveness of interprofessional education in healthcare: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2018;34(3):160-5. DOI 10.1016/j.kjms.2017.12.009.
Jones K, Blumenthal D, Burke J, Condren M, Hansen R, Holiday-Goodman M, et al. Interprofessional education in introductory pharmacy practice experiences at US colleges and schools of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(5):80. DOI 10.5688/ajpe76580.
Grego SMD. A avaliação formativa: ressignificando concepções e processos. Volume 3. 1a ed. São Paulo: UNESP; UNIVESP; 2013. Disponível em: http://educapes.capes.gov.br/handle/capes/461391. Acesso em: 13 nov. 2024.
Sortwell A, Trimble K, Ferraz R, Geelan DR, Hine G, Ramirez-Campillo R, Carter-Thuiller B, Gkintoni E, Xuan Q. A systematic review of meta analyses on the impact of formative assessment on K-12 students’ learning: toward sustainable quality education. Sustainability. 2024;16(7826). doi:10.3390/su16177826.
Benton A, Hataway D. The illogical leap to summative without formative: incorporating low-risk assessments to better serve high-risk students. J Coll Sci Teach. 2024;53(3):302-7. DOI 10.1080/0047231X.2024.2339126.
Lemes MA, Marin MJ, Lazarini CA, Bocchi SCM, Higa EFR. Estratégias de avaliação em aprendizagem ativa no ensino superior em saúde: revisão integrativa. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021;74(2).
Santos L. A articulação entre a avaliação somativa e a formativa, na prática pedagógica: uma impossibilidade ou um desafio? Ensaio: Aval Pol Públ Educ. 2016;24(92):637-69. DOI 10.1590/S0104-40362016000300006.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 O Mundo da Saúde
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
