A key role of allied health (AH) professional regulatory and professional bodies is to ensure that AH education programs provide work-integrated learning (WIL) opportunities for students. The requirements are outlined via the respective profession’s educational accreditation standards. Although a significant component of the AH professional degrees, researchers have not explored how standards specific to WIL are developed, nor how WIL might be conceptualised through the standards. This study explored how WIL is conceptualised through comparing the WIL education standards across Australian AH professions. Using a non-experimental explanatory mixed-methods research design, a document analysis of Australian education program accreditation standards (and associated documents) for 15 AH professions was undertaken. Data analysis included inductive textual and thematic analyses to compare AH professionals’ conceptualisation of WIL. This study found a high degree of variation in how AH professions describe WIL. While there was a common requirement for students to demonstrate competency in WIL, requirements for WIL quantity, assessment and supervision varied. Four key themes were identified regarding the contribution of WIL to curriculum and student learning: (1) the relationship between WIL and the program curriculum; (2) WIL as a learning process; (3) learning from diverse WIL contexts; and (4) developing competence through WIL. Overall, the diversity in the standards reflected differing understandings of what WIL is. Thus, in the absence of frameworks for designing accreditation standards, the risk is that some AH professions will continue to perpetuate the myth that the primary purpose of WIL is to provide a bridge between theory and practice.

Work-integrated learning (WIL) is a core aspect of allied health education. WIL placements typically focus on developing clinical skills, with broader conceptions of work readiness a secondary consideration. Near-peer mentoring (NPM), where senior students mentor junior students, is one WIL placement model that holds promise for developing students’ work readiness, along with additional benefits for educators and service users. While there is emerging evidence of the benefits of NPM in allied health, a more comprehensive understanding of the design and outcomes of NPM WIL placements for allied health students, their educators and service users is needed. A systematic search of seven electronic databases (CINAHL, ERIC, ProQuest Education, Medline, PsychInfo, EMBASE and Scopus) from 2003 to 2022 was conducted with 4195 records reviewed. Included studies reported on near-peer mentoring between at least one of the identified 11 allied health professionals providing services to real people (i.e. not simulation). Data extracted included pedagogical approaches, type of service model and relationship of peers to each other and educator, objectives for implementing the NPM, and effects for students. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Standards for Reporting of Qualitative Research (SRQR). Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority were North American in origin, from the disciplines of pharmacy, physiotherapy, psychology and occupational therapy, and used a range of research designs. Four types of placement design were observed from incidental co-location of students and observing outcomes through to deliberate preparation of students and/or educators for their roles in a NPM placement. Outcomes for junior students included lowered anxiety leading to increased confidence and motivation to learn and thus enhanced clinical skills. Senior student outcomes included development of educator skills, increased confidence, and enhanced professional reasoning. Service users and educators also benefited from NPM; however, evidence was sparse in these areas. The evidence supports near-peer mentoring as a valuable WIL model to support work readiness, and several general pedagogical designs are evident. Future research should design NPM WIL with a greater integration of educational theory and evaluate outcomes beyond satisfaction and self-reported experiences.

Clinical placements are a critical component of the training for health professionals such as occupational therapists. However, with growing student enrolments in professional education courses and workload pressures on practitioners, it is increasingly difficult to find sufficient, suitable placements that satisfy program accreditation requirements. The professional accrediting body for occupational therapy in Australia allows up to 200 of the mandatory 1000 clinical placement hours to be completed via simulation activities, but evidence of effectiveness and efficiency for student learning outcomes is lacking. Increasingly placement providers charge a fee to host students, leading educators to consider whether providing an internal program might be a feasible alternative for a portion of placement hours. Economic analysis of the incremental costs and benefits of providing a traditional versus simulated placement is required to inform decision-making. This study is a pragmatic, non-inferiority, single-blind, multicentre, two-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an embedded economic analysis. The RCT will compare a block of 40 hours of simulated placement (intervention) with a 40-hour block of traditional placement (comparator), with a focus on student learning outcomes and delivery costs. Six universities will instigate the educational intervention within their respective occupational therapy courses, randomly assigning their cohort of students (1:1 allocation) to the simulated or traditional clinical placements. The primary outcome is achievement of professional behaviours (e.g. communication, clinical reasoning) as assessed by a post-placement written examination. Secondary outcomes include proportions passing the placement assessed using the Student Practice Evaluation Form-Revised, changes in student confidence pre-/post-placement, student and educator evaluation of the placement experience and cost-effectiveness of simulated versus traditional clinical placements. Comprehensive cost data will be collected for both the simulated and traditional placement programs at each site for economic evaluation. Use of simulation in health-related fields like occupational therapy is common, but these activities usually relate to brief opportunities for isolated skill development. The simulated clinical placement evaluated in this trial is less common because it encapsulates a 5-day block of integrated activities, designed and delivered in a manner intended to emulate best-practice placement experiences. The planned study is rare due to inclusion of an economic analysis that aims to provide valuable information about the relationship between costs and outcomes across participating sites. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001339448 . Registered 26 September 2016.