Start Date
10-29-2016 9:45 AM
End Date
10-29-2016 10:45 AM
Description
Abstract
Despite the increasing momentum and integration of Interprofessional Education (IPE) programs into various health professions curriculum, the findings of previous research are mixed regarding the impact these programs have on dismantling or even stifling students’ negative stereotypes of health professions. Of those studies that find “positive” shifts in students’ perceptions, elements of the Contact Hypothesis are frequently employed to support these apparent shifts. However, there is often little to no attention paid to how intergroup contact within IPE programs actually impacts students’ stereotypes. To examine if students’ attitudes towards other health professions shifted following participation in an IPE program 528 students from six different health profession training programs completed the Student Stereotypes Rating Questionnaire (SSRQ) assessing their perceptions/stereotypes of their own and other health professions at the beginning and end of a two-year IPE program. Following the finding that students’ attitudes did indeed positively shift, interviews with 20 students were analyzed to explore how contact within the program may have impacted their perceptions. The findings lend support for the Contact Hypothesis and the authors argue that opportunities to informally interact and socialize may be more influential on students’ attitudes than the formal aspects of IPE programs, and that models of cognitive representation that emphasis more personalization (as opposed to differentiation) may be more effective tools in examining how intergroup contact within IPE affects students’ stereotypes.
Measureable Learning Objectives:
a.) Provide a better understanding of the Contact Hypothesis and models of cognitive representations, and how these approaches can be utilized effectively in IPE research,
b.) Provide an example of effective and efficient mixed-methods research in evaluating IPE programs, and
c.) Provide tools (both methodological and theoretical) to better assess IPE outcomes.
Included in
A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study of IPE Students' Perceptions of Health Profession Groups: Revisiting the Contact Hypothesis
Abstract
Despite the increasing momentum and integration of Interprofessional Education (IPE) programs into various health professions curriculum, the findings of previous research are mixed regarding the impact these programs have on dismantling or even stifling students’ negative stereotypes of health professions. Of those studies that find “positive” shifts in students’ perceptions, elements of the Contact Hypothesis are frequently employed to support these apparent shifts. However, there is often little to no attention paid to how intergroup contact within IPE programs actually impacts students’ stereotypes. To examine if students’ attitudes towards other health professions shifted following participation in an IPE program 528 students from six different health profession training programs completed the Student Stereotypes Rating Questionnaire (SSRQ) assessing their perceptions/stereotypes of their own and other health professions at the beginning and end of a two-year IPE program. Following the finding that students’ attitudes did indeed positively shift, interviews with 20 students were analyzed to explore how contact within the program may have impacted their perceptions. The findings lend support for the Contact Hypothesis and the authors argue that opportunities to informally interact and socialize may be more influential on students’ attitudes than the formal aspects of IPE programs, and that models of cognitive representation that emphasis more personalization (as opposed to differentiation) may be more effective tools in examining how intergroup contact within IPE affects students’ stereotypes.
Measureable Learning Objectives:
a.) Provide a better understanding of the Contact Hypothesis and models of cognitive representations, and how these approaches can be utilized effectively in IPE research,
b.) Provide an example of effective and efficient mixed-methods research in evaluating IPE programs, and
c.) Provide tools (both methodological and theoretical) to better assess IPE outcomes.