Evaluation framework for a multi-site practice-based interprofessional education intervention.

The interprofessional literature suggests that there is a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of interprofessional education (IPE) on patient outcomes and critiques the methodology used to determine the evidence. This paper describes and critiques a comprehensive evaluation of a practice-based IPE intervention. The evaluation was challenged by the complexity of the project such as having multiple sites with great variability in settings and participants which required a multifaceted evaluation approach. Rather than reporting evaluation findings, this paper discusses the methodological successes and challenges of the evaluation framework used. The evaluation consisted of four components: process, outcomes, context and systems evaluation. A mixed method approach was used to collect information from a variety of data sources. Each evaluation component captured distinctive but complementary aspects of the intervention, providing a more complete understanding of the intervention. However, challenges also emerged, in particular for the outcomes component. Discussion of the challenges and benefits of each evaluation component are intended to inform future evaluation designs of complex practice-based IP education interventions. Specifically, adding systems concepts into evaluation can strengthen the evidence base of the effectiveness of IP education on IP practice and patient outcomes.

How important is research-based practice to chiropractors and massage therapists?

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the perceptions of research, frequency of use of research findings in practice, and the level of research skills of chiropractors and massage therapists in Canada. Predictors of application of research findings in clinical practice were also explored. METHODS: A survey was mailed to members of the College of Chiropractors of Alberta (n = 833) and the Massage Therapist Association of Alberta (n = 650). Univariate and logistic regression analysis were conducted with SPSS and Stata. RESULTS: A total of 483 questionnaires were returned (response rate, 32.6%). Chiropractors and massage therapists reported an overall positive perception toward research, acknowledging the importance of research to validate their practice. Although both groups felt comfortable using the library, they had little confidence in their research skills and overall application of research in practice was limited. Significant differences were found between the 2 professional groups, with chiropractors reporting more research skills and evidence-based practice. Primary discipline, frequent referral to peer-reviewed journals, and strong agreement with the statement that "research adds credibility to my discipline" were predictors of research application in practice. CONCLUSION: It appears that in Canada neither chiropractors nor massage therapists consistently apply research in practice, which may result from a lack of research education and research skills. The differences between the 2 professional groups may be attributed to the chiropractic profession's relatively more research-focused professional training. Strategies to encourage greater research uptake and evidence-based behavior by practitioners include professional association incentives, such as education credits or practitioner cooperatives that would provide time and support for research.