Over the past decade systematic reviews of interprofessional education (IPE) have provided a more informed understanding of the effects of this type of education. This paper contributes to this literature by reporting an update of a Cochrane systematic review published in this journal ten years ago (Zwarenstein et al., <!--RIDCIT0018--> 18. Zwarenstein, M., Atkins, J., Hammick, M., Barr, H., Koppel, I., Reeves, S. (1999). Interprofessional education and systematic review: A new initiative in evaluation. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 13, 417–424. <!-- ${genRefLink: init CIT0018 %2C+ false sfx.ref.linkHtml } --> <!-- ${genRefLink: 20 10.3109%2F13561829909010386 } --> <!-- ${sfxLinkReplacer: null %26genre%3D 10.3109%2F13561820903163405 ,} --> View all references ). In updating this initial review, our current work involved searches of a number of electronic databases from 1999–2006, as well as reference lists, books, conference proceedings and websites. Like the previous review, only studies which employed randomized controlled trials, controlled-before and-after-studies and interrupted time series studies of IPE, and that reported validated professional practice and health care outcomes, were included. While the first review found no studies which met its inclusion criteria, the updated review located six IPE studies. This paper aims to add to the ongoing development of evidence for IPE. Despite some useful progress being made in relation to strengthening the evidence base for IPE, the paper concludes by stressing that further rigorous mixed method studies of IPE are needed to provide a greater clarity of IPE and its effects on professional practice and patient/client care.

Ethnography is a type of qualitative research that gathers observations, interviews and documentary data to produce detailed and comprehensive accounts of different social phenomena. The use of ethnographic research in medical education has produced a number of insightful accounts into its role, functions and difficulties in the preparation of medical students for clinical practice. This AMEE Guide offers an introduction to ethnography – its history, its differing forms, its role in medical education and its practical application. Specifically, the Guide initially outlines the main characteristics of ethnography: describing its origins, outlining its varying forms and discussing its use of theory. It also explores the role, contribution and limitations of ethnographic work undertaken in a medical education context. In addition, the Guide goes on to offer a range of ideas, methods, tools and techniques needed to undertake an ethnographic study. In doing so it discusses its conceptual, methodological, ethical and practice challenges (e.g. demands of recording the complexity of social action, the unpredictability of data collection activities). Finally, the Guide provides a series of final thoughts and ideas for future engagement with ethnography in medical education. This Guide is aimed for those interested in understanding ethnography to develop their evaluative skills when reading such work. It is also aimed at those interested in considering the use of ethnographic methods in their own research work.

Interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) have been identified in health education and health care as playing an important role in improving health care services and patient outcomes. Despite a growth in the amount of research in these areas, poor conceptualizations of these interprofessional activities have persisted. Given the conceptual challenges, a scoping review of the interprofessional field was undertaken to map the literature available in order to identify key concepts, theories and sources of evidence. The objective of this review was to develop a theoretically based and empirically tested understanding of IPE and IPC. A total of 104 studies met the criteria and were included for analysis. Studies were examined for their approach to conceptualization, implementation, and assessment of their interprofessional interventions. Half of the studies were used for interprofessional framework development and half for framework testing and refinement. The final framework contains three main types of interprofessional interventions: IPE; interprofessional practice; and interprofessional organization; and describes the nature of each type of intervention by stage, participants, intervention type, interprofessional objectives, and outcomes. The outcomes are delineated as intermediate, patient, and system outcomes. There was very limited use of theory in the studies, and thus theoretical aspects could not be incorporated into the framework. This study offers an initial step in mapping out the interprofessional field and outlines possible ways forward for future research and practice.