100 Chapter 6 Our last finding in this study concerns the interprofessional collaborative competencies of the nursing and medical students. The students in the IPE-group in our study perceived to have grown more in their interprofessional competencies than the students in the UPE-group. The ‘after-scores’ (T3) were not significantly different between the IPE and UPE groups, but IPE-students rated themselves somewhat lower in the pre-score and somewhat higher in the after-score than UPE-students. Maybe IPE-students realized what they did not know about interprofessional collaboration because the attended IPE-sessions. They became consciously incompetent instead of unconsciously incompetent. It is an interesting finding that our intervention was big enough to achieve such a difference and also that the difference is still significant one year after the intervention. This adds to the literature of the long-term effects of IPE-interventions, since such a finding has not been described before. A few other studies have also used the ICCAS after an IPE-intervention and they have reported a positive change between pre and post scores, but this was measured directly after the intervention (Gunaldo et al., 2021; King et al., 2016; Kruger et al., 2023). Gunaldo et al. (2021) did study the long-term effect of a one-time IPE-intervention on interprofessional collaboration using the ICCAS, one year after the intervention. They did not find significant change, but this may have been because their intervention was shorter than ours. Mink et al. (2021) used another questionnaire, the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale and found an increase of perceived interprofessional skills directly after, but also 3 months after the IPE-intervention. The effect size of 0.6 measured 3 months after the intervention was similar to the effect size we found in our study. McNaughton (2018), in her scoping review, describes that most studies tend to have positive long-term effects of IPE on interprofessional collaboration, but that most studies use self-measurements. This is also a limitation in our study. Our study was subject to some limitations. The response at T3 was relatively low, and, compared to the UPE-group, the proportion of nursing students in the IPEgroup was bigger at T3. Although the sample size was adequate, this could have influenced the results. Future research with larger sample sizes could find significant differences between nursing and medical students. Also more different professions could be included, such as pharmacy and physical therapy. The second limitation is the self-measurement tool we used, the ICCAS. Although we found significant differences between the intervention and the controlled group, the outcome is perceived attainment of competencies, not the actual performance in clinical practice. Data collection of the ICCAS at T2 could have helped to determine competency development. This is a limitation of our study, since we did not collected this data. Collecting the ICCAS data at several points in time would be an implication for future research involving the ICCAS (Violato & King, 2019). In addition, it would be
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw