Interprofessional versus monoprofessional case-based learning in childhood cancer and the effect on healthcare professionals’ knowledge and attitudes: study protocol for a randomised trial

Abstract

Background Interprofessional education in childhood cancer is a multifaceted field involving 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 field of expertise. However, limited knowledge exists in comparing interprofessional and monoprofessional education. Only a few randomised studies have evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of interprofessional education. The objective of this single-centre, investigator-initiated cluster randomised trial is to study the effect of interprofessional versus monoprofessional case-based learning on healthcare professionals’ knowledge of gastrointestinal side effects and attitudes towards team collaboration. Methods This study will randomise healthcare professionals to participate in either the experimental interprofessional group or the control monoprofessional group of case-based learning. The topic of the case-based intervention will be gastrointestinal side effects, one of six categories identified in a three-round Scandinavian Delphi study as relevant for interprofessional education in childhood cancer. The primary outcome is the self-reported questionnaire Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale. Secondary outcomes are measured by the self-reported questionnaires Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale Questionnaire, Safety Attitudes Questionnaire, and knowledge will be evaluated using a multiple-choice quiz. Participants will receive the self-reported questionnaires about 2 weeks before and 1 month after the intervention. On the day of the intervention, participants will answer a multiple-choice quiz before and after the case-based learning. Linear mixed models will be used to compare differences between the two groups in mean scores postintervention, adjusting for preintervention scores. Discussion This study will provide insight into the differences between interprofessional and monoprofessional case-based learning and how it affects healthcare professionals’ knowledge of gastrointestinal side effects and attitudes towards team collaboration. Trial registration The intervention was registered at Clinical Trials.gov: NCT04204109 on December 102,019 and with the National Committee on Health Research Ethics: H-19087506 December 112,019 and the Danish Data Protection Agency: P-2019-637 October 152,019.

Postgraduate Interprofessional Case-Based Learning in Childhood Cancer: A Feasibility Study

“…We planned the intervention in collaboration with the management and the scheduling coordinators at the four clinical departments. The first and last author met regularly with management to ensure recruitment and support for the case-based learning sessions [16]. The intervention was scheduled six months in advance to take place during regular working hours on a specific date.…”

“…The randomization was designed to ensure an adequate composition of health professionals resembling authentic clinical teams of 10-18 people (e.g., four nurses, two doctors, one physiotherapist, one priest, one teacher, one social worker, and one pharmacist). Further details are available in the protocol [16].…”

“…The intervention design was based on the case-based learning literature [11,12,17] and the research team's didactic experience [18]. For details on the intervention, including examples of the learning objectives applied, see the protocol [16]. We conducted four interprofessional case-based learning sessions.…”

“…The case was open to interpretation, depending on the profession of healthcare personnel regarding the causes of problems and potential solutions. For a case example, see the protocol [16]. Tabloid-size papers mounted on the wall guided and synchronized the group's work in a structured manner [18].…”

“…This structure originates from heuristic clinical problem solving (definition of problems, gathering of facts, hypothesis, hypothesis testing, and feedback). Each session consisted of three and a half hours of case-based learning [16].…”