***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: This update located nine new studies, which were added to the six studies from our last update in 2008. This review now includes 15 studies (eight RCTs, five CBA and two ITS studies). All of these studies measured the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no educational intervention. Seven studies indicated that IPE produced positive outcomes in the following areas: diabetes care, emergency department culture and patient satisfaction; collaborative team behaviour and reduction of clinical error rates for emergency department teams; collaborative team behaviour in operating rooms; management of care delivered in cases of domestic violence; and mental health practitioner competencies related to the delivery of patient care. In addition, four of the studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and four studies reported that the IPE interventions had no impact on either professional practice or patient care. This updated review reports on 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria (nine studies from this update and six studies from the 2008 update). Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. To improve the quality of evidence relating to IPE and patient outcomes or healthcare process outcomes, the following three gaps will need to be filled: first, studies that assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific interventions; second, RCT, CBA or ITS studies with qualitative strands examining processes relating to the IPE and practice changes; third, cost-benefit analyses.
Output:

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. These studies were added to the six that we found the last time we updated the review, bringing the total to 15 studies. Seven of these studies reported positive outcomes for healthcare processes or patient outcomes, or both, four studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and four reported no effects of IPE. The studies differed in many respects. They were conducted in different areas of clinical practice and included different IPE interventions. The study designs and outcome measures were also different. All 15 studies compared outcomes following an IPE intervention to outcomes, either in similar clinical settings that did not receive the IPE intervention, or in the same clinical setting before the intervention was made. Because no studies compared an interprofessional intervention to a profession-specific intervention, our understanding of interprofessional interventions is limited. The small number of studies included in this review, and their varied nature, limit our understanding of the key components of IPE and its effectiveness. More studies are needed to allow sound conclusions to be reached about the effectiveness of IPE, as well as to inform IPE policy development. In particular, these should include: first, studies that assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific interventions; second, RCT, CBA or ITS studies with qualitative strands examining processes relating to the IPE and practice changes; third, cost-benefit analyses.