Translation and cultural adaptation of the Japanese version of the interprofessional facilitation scale

Abstract

Effective interaction in interprofessional collaboration requires skills in interprofessional facilitation. The need for interprofessional learning and practice in Japan is highlighted by Japan's status as one of the most rapidly aging societies because good care for elderly people with complex needs requires effective collaboration between different professional groups. The development of interprofessional facilitation skills (including management of the additional complexities) among learners or professionals enhances interprofessional learning and consensus building and empowers them to make appropriate commitments when faced with difficult challenges. The 18-item interprofessional facilitation scale (IPFS) can be used to enhance interprofessional facilitation skills. Here, we aimed to develop a Japanese adapted version of the IPFS and to validate it for use with Japanese healthcare professionals. Consistent with guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation, three translators translated the original IPFS from English into Japanese, and an expert and all authors confirmed its face and content validity. The translated items were amended during backtranslation and expert reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was performed with 167 healthcare professionals to explore the underlying structure of the items. This analysis revealed two factors with good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.8), which were labelled as: (1) encouraging interprofessional interaction and (2) respect for each professional. The original factor 'Encouraging interprofessional interaction' was divided into two factors in the study. One reason for this division might be related to the behaviour of Japanese health professionals, that is, most Japanese might understand that 'facilitation' encourages relationships as contextual belonging that are distinct from relationships based on respect for others. This mindset is likely based on the notion of 'relationalism', which is fundamental in Japanese culture. Further investigation of this Japanese version of the IPFS will strengthen factor construction and improve scrutiny of the relationships between factors.

Implementing a collaborative medicine and pharmacy educational activity in two countries

“…Specifically, the shift from didactic teaching methods to active student learning was reported to be more challenging on the campus in Malaysia. Consistent with the recommendations of Lee et al [34] and Haruta et al [35]. IPE should differ across context.…”

Insights into Delivering Cross-Cultural Medical Education in the UK and Malaysia

“…Brock et al recently reported on the development of an IPE activity for medical and pharmacy students at Monash University, delivered on their Australian and Malaysian campuses [90]. They note the importance of developing context-specific activities, consistent with recommendations from studies that have incorporated Western IPE competency frameworks into South East Asian healthcare education curricula [91,92].…”

Effective Behaviors in Work Teams: Spanish Adaptation of the Individual Behavior Analysis Scale

“…It is a self-report questionnaire to measure three interprofessional education readiness factors from an attitudinal approach: teamwork and collaboration, professional identity, and roles and responsibilities. However, although work team has become a nuclear area of study in interprofessional education ( Archibald et al, 2014 ; Prentice et al, 2016 ; Ganotice and Chan, 2018 ; Haruta et al, 2018 ; Williams et al, 2018 ), there are hardly any instruments to measure teamwork behaviors from an individual approach.…”

“…However, developing instruments to assess individual behaviors of each team member is also important because it helps giving feedback on their behaviors and their relationship with team objectives. This feedback is not only necessary when students are learning to work collaboratively with other professionals ( Tamura et al, 2012 ; Weaver et al, 2014 ; Thistlethwaite et al, 2016 ; Ganotice and Chan, 2018 ), but also when becomes an actual worker in an interprofessional team ( Healey et al, 2006 ; Valentine et al, 2015 ; Prentice et al, 2016 ; Shoemaker et al, 2016 ; Haruta et al, 2018 ).…”