Effective interprofessional working is considered to be essential for optimum healthcare delivery. Interprofessional rivalry, tribalism and stereotypes are known to exist within healthcare professions and detract from effective health delivery. Limited literature is available that reports undergraduate healthcare students' stereotypical perceptions of each other. Stereotypes in relation to interprofessional education are commonly explained through the Contact Hypothesis Theory, the Realistic Conflict Theory, or the Social Identity Theory. The aim of this study was to investigate undergraduate physiotherapy and podiatry students' stereotypes of each other's professions before and after a semester of interprofessional education. Stereotypes were measured using the Health Team Stereotype Scale. Results indicated that both professional groups had stereotypical perceptions of each other prior to any education, which were reinforced as a result of the education. The results support the Social Identity Theory, which explains intergroup discrimination and describes an interpersonalintergroup continuum. The timing of the interprofessional education may be critical to reducing such an effect

Objective The aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of the lateral approach to subacromial injection, compared with the posterior approach, for the treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome. Method A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was carried out in an outpatient community musculoskeletal service. The sample comprised 80 adults, aged 18 years or over, with subacromial impingement syndrome. The intervention group received a single subacromial injection, using a 21‐gauge green needle, of 40 mg/ml triamcinolone acetonide (Kenalog) and 4 ml 1% lignocaine using a lateral approach. The control group received identical treatment, with the exception that the injection was given using a posterior approach. The outcome measures were pain measured using 0–10 numerical pain scale and shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) scores at 8 and 12 weeks' follow‐up. Result A moderate but statistically and clinically significant difference in improvement in daytime pain (mean change in score) occurred in favour of the lateral group (mean = 4.0) compared with the posterior group (mean = 2.0) between weeks 0 and 8 (1.4 points [95% confidence interval 0.3, 2.6; p = 0.018]). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in night‐time pain, shoulder function and SPADI scores. There was a statistically and clinically significant difference (p = 0.001) within the groups for all clinical outcomes between weeks 0 and 8, and between weeks 0 and 12. Conclusion There were no significant differences in the treatments; however, both forms of treatment were associated with a significant improvement in shoulder pain, function and disability.