INCAsE: Interprofessional Versus Monoprofessional Case-based Learning in Childhood Cancer
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
Interprofessional education in childhood cancer is a multifaceted field. It involves multiple healthcare professionals with general and specialised knowledge and skills. Complex treatment, care and rehabilitation require continuous professional development and maintenance of healthcare professionals' competencies in their own professional field. Limited knowledge exists on comparing interprofessional and monoprofessional education and only few randomised studies have evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of interprofessional education. One clinical area among others where healthcare professionals collaborate is in gastrointestinal toxicities and side effects. These are frequent and potentially severe clinical problems in childhood cancer that involve multiple healthcare professionals.
Objectives: To study the effect of interprofessional versus monoprofessional case-based learning on healthcare professionals' attitudes on interprofessional learning and collaboration.
Trial design: single centre investigator-initiated cluster randomized trial
Methods:
Participants: Employees with patient-related work at the childhood cancer departments and affiliated with childhood cancer at Rigshospitalet are eligible for inclusion. The setting is the childhood cancer department.
Outcome: The primary outcome is to improve healthcare professionals' interprofessional attitude.
Measurements:
The primary outcome is attitudes measured by the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS). Secondary outcome is Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) Questionnaire, and Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ). Knowledge will be measured by written test as multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ).
Timepoints: The self-reported questionnaires will be distributed to the participants approximately one month before and one month after the educational intervention. On the day of the educational intervention, participants will answer the multiple choice questionnaire.
Analysis: Linear mixed regression will be used to compare differences in mean scores postintervention, adjusted for differences between the two groups.
Results: We hypothesise that interprofessional case-based learning positively affects the healthcare professionals' interprofessional attitudes.
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
N/A |
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
|---|---|
| Experimental: Interprofessional case-based learning The experimental intervention will be the interprofessional group receiving case-based learning about gastro-intestinal toxicities and side effects of children and adolescents with cancer. |
Other: Interprofessional case-based learning
The trial is an educational intervention where groups of healthcare professionals receive the same case-based learning: one group receives case-based learning with healthcare professionals of various professional backgrounds (experimental) versus another group receiving case-based learning with healthcare professionals exclusively of the same professional background (control).
The educational intervention consists of a case that is developed for the purpose of the intervention.
The participants in the experimental group will be randomised into six teams who will receive interprofessional case-based learning. The experimental group will be made up of healthcare professionals from various groups. The participants in the control group will be randomised in groups of one profession
|
| Active Comparator: Monoprofessional case-based learning The control group is the monoprofessional group that will receive the same case-based learning as the intervention group. |
Other: Interprofessional case-based learning
The trial is an educational intervention where groups of healthcare professionals receive the same case-based learning: one group receives case-based learning with healthcare professionals of various professional backgrounds (experimental) versus another group receiving case-based learning with healthcare professionals exclusively of the same professional background (control).
The educational intervention consists of a case that is developed for the purpose of the intervention.
The participants in the experimental group will be randomised into six teams who will receive interprofessional case-based learning. The experimental group will be made up of healthcare professionals from various groups. The participants in the control group will be randomised in groups of one profession
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Change in the participants' interprofessional collaboration [Measured 1 month before intervention and 1-3 months after intervention in both groups]
Primary outcome: change in the participants' interprofessional attitude to collaboration measured by Assessment of interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS). The scale contains three main categories: 1)Partnership/shared decision making (19 items), 2) Collaboration (11 items), 3) Coordination (7 items) that are rated on a scale from 1-5 (1= "never"; 2= "rarely"; 3="occasionally"; 4="most of the time"; 5="Always"). The scales procedures scores from 48 to 240. Higher scores indicate a better outcome
Secondary Outcome Measures
- Change in the participants' interprofessional attitudes [Measured 1 month before intervention and 1-3 months after intervention in both groups]
Secondary outcome: measured by Change in Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Survey (RIPLS). 29 items on a five-point scale 4 subscales; 1)Teamwork and collaboration, 2)Negative professional identity, 3)Positive professional identity, 4)Roles and responsibility. The items are rated on a scale from 1-5 (1= "strongly disagree"; 2= "agree"; 3="undecided"; 4="agree"; 5="strongly agree"). Higher scores indicate a better outcome
- Change in participants' knowledge of gastrointestinal toxicities and side effects [measured at the actual intervention day 30 minutes prior to the session and immediately after the education session (maximum 15 minutes after)]
measured by written test as multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ). There are three options to chose from in this multiple choice questionnaire, one correct answer and two wrong answers. This MCQ is developed and validated for the purpose of this particular education session
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
Healthcare professionals at the in-patient department for children and adolescents with cancer
-
Healthcare professionals at the in-patient department for transplantation of children and adolescents with cancer
-
Healthcare professionals at the out-patient departments for children and adolescents with cancer department
-
Healthcare professionals affiliated with Juliane Marie Centre at Rigshospitalet
-
Employees in a supportive function to the department for children and adolescents with cancer, such as psychologists, priests, pedagogues, social workers, experts in pain relief in children, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and dieticians.
-
Teachers employed at a local public school but have their main working hours at the department.
Exclusion Criteria:
-
Staff taking part in the intervention or in the planning of the intervention
-
Management with staff responsibilities
-
Lack of informed consent
Contacts and Locations
Locations
| Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Juliane Marie Centre for Women, Children and Reproduction (JMC), Rigshospitalet (RH), Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark. | Copenhagen | Denmark | 2100 |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- Rigshospitalet, Denmark
- Danish Child Cancer Foundation
Investigators
- Study Chair: Jette L Sørensen, Juliane Marie Centre for Women, Children and Reproduction (JMC), Rigshospitalet (RH), Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark.
Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Additional Information:
Publications
- Allen LM, Palermo C, Armstrong E, Hay M. Categorising the broad impacts of continuing professional development: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2019 Nov;53(11):1087-1099. doi: 10.1111/medu.13922. Epub 2019 Aug 8.
- Campbell MJ, Donner A, Klar N. Developments in cluster randomized trials and Statistics in Medicine. Stat Med. 2007 Jan 15;26(1):2-19.
- Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, Guthrie B, Lester H, Wilson P, Kinmonth AL. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ. 2007 Mar 3;334(7591):455-9. Review.
- Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M; Medical Research Council Guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655.
- Marcussen M, Nørgaard B, Borgnakke K, Arnfred S. Interprofessional clinical training in mental health improves students' readiness for interprofessional collaboration: a non-randomized intervention study. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jan 18;19(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1465-6.
- Nørgaard B, Ammentorp J, Kofoed PE, Kyvik KO. Training improves inter-collegial communication. Clin Teach. 2012 Jun;9(3):173-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-498X.2011.00525.x.
- Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 22;6:CD000072. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3. Review.
- Reeves S, Zwarenstein M, Goldman J, Barr H, Freeth D, Hammick M, Koppel I. Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD002213. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002213.pub2. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:CD002213.
- Ruebling I, Pole D, Breitbach AP, Frager A, Kettenbach G, Westhus N, Kienstra K, Carlson J. A comparison of student attitudes and perceptions before and after an introductory interprofessional education experience. J Interprof Care. 2014 Jan;28(1):23-7. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2013.829421. Epub 2013 Sep 3.
- Thistlethwaite J. Interprofessional education: 50 years and counting. Med Educ. 2016 Nov;50(11):1082-1086. doi: 10.1111/medu.12959.
- Topperzer MK, Larsen HB, Hoffmann M, Schmiegelow K, Lausen B, Madsen M, Roland P, Sørensen JL. Response to: Patient-centred medical education: A proposed definition. Med Teach. 2020 Mar;42(3):360-361. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1625315. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
- Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, Sterne JA, Burney PG. Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(5):iii-92. Review.
- Mtopperzer