“Exploring the National Contexts for Interprofessional Education (IPE) and Practice (IPP): An International Comparison of Forces and Factors”

This source preferred by Sarah Hean

Authors: Clark, P.

Start date: June 2014

National contexts provide unique settings for interprofessional education and practice reflecting different cultural, social, and political forces and factors. This panel is designed to address the need for international comparisons to clarify different barriers to, and facilitators of, interprofessional efforts. Comparisons are made among England, Norway, Canada, and the US.


The World Health Organization (2010) Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice highlights the growing importance of health and social care students and professionals learning how to work together. However, differing national contexts present very different settings for the development and implementation of new models and methods of IPE and IPP, and these various environments can provide both substantial supports and significant deterrents to their successful development and continuation.


The overall goal of this session is to begin to construct for panelists and participants an analytical framework that systematically categorizes the significant forces and factors shaping interprofessional education (IPE) and practice (IPP) at the national level. The development of a typology of these elements can facilitate the construction of a systems model to identify significant elements of national context, explore their interrelationships, and project their impacts on the development, implementation, and continuation of IPE and IPP models and programs around the world.

Methods and Interactions

This panel session will present the experience of four countries (England, Norway, Canada, and the US) with regard to factors and forces that shape contexts for both IPE and IPP. Each panelist representing a different country will be asked to respond to a standard set of questions:

1. What are the forces in your health and social care system nationally that either support or threaten IPP?

2. How do national developments and requirements in higher education (e.g., accreditation, licensure, and certification) impact the development of IPE in academic settings?

3. Who are the major players or stakeholders in your national system that are the most invested in bringing about greater IPE and IPP? What are the outcomes they hope to achieve?

4. What lessons can your national context teach others about the development and continuation of IPE and IPP efforts?

Each panelist will have 12 minutes to present their interpretation of these forces in their national setting, and then we will open the discussion among the panelists and participants. They will be invited to share their perceptions and interpretations of the factors in their own country’s context. We expect to provide sufficient time for a lively dialogue on what aspects of each setting are the most important in shaping the future of IPE and IPP. We will develop a brief written survey to be used to capture additional information, comments, and observations from each participant to be turned in at the end of the program. The results will be used to generate an ongoing examination of these issues beyond this meeting.


Following the panel discussion, participants will have:

1. An understanding of how broader health and social care forces inform and shape the national context for IPE and IPP.

2. A framework for developing methods and strategies to promote IPE and IPP based on supporting factors and forces within their own country.

Target Audience

We expect equal numbers of educators, clinical practitioners, researchers, and administrators in this panel session, as we include both IPE and IPP in our focus.

The data on this page was last updated at 05:12 on February 21, 2020.