Measuring Behaviour as Outcome of Interprofessional Interventions: A Review of a Recent Tool Inventory.

Abstract

Background: This article discusses a recently developed inventory of questionnaires by a former working group of the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC) to promote interprofessional (IP) intervention (education and practice) and program evaluation. The classification of questionnaires into six outcome levels revealed an unusually large number focusing on behavioural outcomes. Behavioural outcomes are key measures for evaluating IP interventions, and we decided to further explore the design of questionnaires in this inventory.

Methods and Findings: The data presented in this article are based on a systematic search and review of questionnaires published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2010 that evaluate outcomes related to interprofessional education and collaborative practice. The review was used to construct an inventory that placed questionnaires into six outcome levels: attitudes; knowledge, skills, and abilities; collaborative behaviour of providers at the workplace; collaboration as part of organizational practice; patient satisfaction with collaboration, and provider satisfaction with collaboration. We took a closer look at the subgroup of measures on collaborative behaviour of providers (Level 3 Outcome). We found that the questionnaires included in Level 3 measure a range of competencies. The wording of the subscale items was at times difficult to interpret. While some statements can be clearly attributed to measuring behaviour, others could be seen as measuring some sort of attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge. Since subscale items tended to be a combination of indicators, it was difficult to attribute questionnaires to one particular level.

Conclusions: Designing questionnaires for evaluating outcomes from IP interventions is a challenge, especially when behavioural competencies are of interest. We would welcome more attention paid to the input of potential users in questionnaire construction, who are mostly left with little guidance on how to interpret the questions. Triangulation of methods to supplement the current focus on subjective outcome evaluations from IP interventions would also enhance this research.