Interprofessional Education Experience, Self-Rated Knowledge, and Perceived Interprofessional Collaboration Among Health Professions Faculty and Educators: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Study in Albania and Italy

Abstract

Highlights What are the main findings? After adjustment, self-reported prior IPE experience showed a clearer association with perceived collaboration than single-item self-rated knowledge; no interaction by country of work was supported. Perceived collaboration was highest for Cooperation and lowest for Partnership; participants’ written accounts provided complementary context by identifying professional silos, resistance to change, status hierarchies, and unclear role boundaries. What are the implications of the main findings? In this sample, self-reported prior IPE experience showed a clearer association with perceived collaboration than did a single-item self-rating of IPE knowledge; this comparison should not be interpreted as showing that experience is inherently more important than knowledge. Curricular revision and shared teaching (33.3%) was the most frequently proposed strategy, but the barriers described were predominantly cultural, organisational and resource-related, indicating that curricular change alone is unlikely to be sufficient without institutional and faculty-level support. Abstract Background/Objectives: Interprofessional education (IPE) supports collaborative practice, but educational exposure, self-rated knowledge, and collaboration are distinct constructs. We examined the adjusted associations between self-reported prior IPE experience and single-item self-rated IPE knowledge and perceived collaboration among health professions faculty and educators in Albanian and Italian work contexts. Methods: This quantitative-dominant cross-sectional mixed-methods study included 445 faculty members and educators. Collaboration was assessed using language-matched versions of the 23-item Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale II (AITCS-II). Self-rated IPE knowledge was assessed using a single author-developed 0–100 item. Heteroskedasticity-consistent type 3 standard errors in linear regressions examined adjusted associations and exploratory context interactions. Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analyses examined preliminary evidence of internal structural validity and internal consistency in this sample. Directed qualitative content analysis with inductive expansion examined 341 responses from 114 participants and was integrated into the aggregate results. Results: A total of 47.2% of participants reported prior IPE experience; the mean single-item self-rated IPE knowledge score was 31.7/100, and the mean overall AITCS-II score was 3.95/5. Cooperation was rated highest and Partnership lowest. In the adjusted model (n = 417), self-reported prior IPE experience was associated with a 0.32-point higher overall AITCS-II score (95% CI 0.18–0.47), while each 10-point increase in the single-item knowledge rating was associated with a 0.03-point higher score (95% CI 0.002–0.058). No country-of-work interaction was statistically supported. The response covariance structure was compatible with the hypothesised three-factor model. Qualitative findings emphasised experiential and longitudinal learning and identified professional silos, hierarchies, curricular rigidity, limited resources, and weak organisational coordination as barriers. Conclusions: Self-reported prior IPE experience showed a clearer and more consistent association with perceived collaboration than did the single-item measure of self-rated IPE knowledge, whose association was small and less consistent across domains. Applied, repeated, and contextually embedded IPE, supported by faculty development and organisational structures, may facilitate collaborative practice. Causal and cross-country conclusions are not warranted.