Analysis of the readiness for interprofessional learning of health course students in the interior of Ceará

Tiara Bruna Teixeira Teodósio¹, Abenor Nogueira Neto², Luana Maria Dias da Silveira³,  Jacques Antonio Cavalcante Maciel⁵, Franklin Delano Soares Forte⁴, Ana Karine Macedo Teixeira⁶, Mariana Ramalho de Farias⁷

^1,5Universidade Federal do Ceará, Sobral (CE), Brazil. ^2,3,6,7Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza (CE), Brazil. ⁴Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa (PB), Brazil.

Introduction

Interprofessional Education (IPE) has gained increasing relevance in recent decades, especially since 2020, due to the growing demand for collaborative practices in health systems. According to the World Health Organization (WHO),¹ IPE occurs when students from two or more professions learn with, from, and about each other, intending to improve collaboration and the quality of care.¹ This approach seeks to prepare health professionals to work in an integrated manner, promoting patient-centered care that is more qualified, resolutive, and efficient.

Some recent studies have highlighted the effectiveness of IPE in improving patient safety and reducing care-related errors by fostering communication among different health fields. According to Oliveira and Santos,² interprofessional practice has contributed to increased efficiency in teamwork and greater satisfaction among health professionals, promoting more collaborative and less hierarchical work environments. This advancement has proven especially relevant in highly complex contexts, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which interprofessional teams demonstrated greater capacity for adaptation and response to emerging demands.³

Peduzzi et al.⁴ emphasized that teamwork constitutes a fundamental strategic component for addressing the growing complexity of health demands, which require a broader, comprehensive, and contextualized approach, as well as for organizing health services and care networks. This scenario also results from demographic changes associated with increased life expectancy and population aging, as well as transformations in the epidemiological profile marked by the rise of chronic diseases and conditions that require longitudinal follow-up. In this context, outcomes tend to be more effective when health services are organized based on teamwork.

Given this context, there is a demand in health work that goes beyond the individualized practices of each profession, making it necessary to strengthen the understanding that professional specificities are complementary. In teamwork, professionals do not abandon their specific expertise but value cooperative work to address complex and dynamic social and health needs, placing them at the center of care.⁵

Therefore, collaborative practice contributes to improving the quality of care, as it depends on teams’ ability to deal with different perspectives and to assume common ground, creating a shared territory of practices and knowledge among professionals. Its characteristics include more effective communication processes among team members, the definition of common goals, shared decision-making, recognition of the roles and contributions of other professionals, professional autonomy, and horizontality in work relationships.⁶

However, despite the evidenced benefits, interprofessional collaboration faces challenges such as cultural, structural, and communication barriers that need to be overcome to ensure its effectiveness. Thus, it becomes essential to prepare students to work in multidisciplinary teams from the beginning of their academic training.

In Brazil, initiatives aimed at incorporating IPE into academic curricula have intensified in recent years. Barbosa et al.⁷ emphasized that the implementation of IPE in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) allows future professionals to better understand the responsibilities and competencies of different health professions, contributing to more comprehensive care. This approach has been recognized as essential for the development of collaborative competencies, which are fundamental in the contemporary context of health care.

Undergraduate curricula in Brazil are structured to provide students with various opportunities for curricular and extracurricular activities, such as teaching (mandatory or elective), research, and university outreach to the community (optional). While outreach activities promote students’ integration into the community, extracurricular activities contribute to deepening and complementing academic training. These activities may include non-mandatory internships, study groups, research groups, and governmental programs aimed at improving health education, such as the Programa de Educação pelo Trabalho para a Saúde (PET-Saúde).⁸

However, HEI still faces significant challenges for the effective implementation of IPE in health education. These challenges affect both curriculum structure and the preparation of future professionals for collaborative practice. They include curriculum fragmentation, academic cultures resistant to change, lack of faculty trained in IPE, lack of institutional support, integration between teaching and clinical practice, among others.⁹

Given this scenario, it becomes essential to analyze how students from health courses perceive and demonstrate readiness for interprofessional learning during their academic training. Assessing this readiness makes it possible to identify strengths and weaknesses in the educational process, supporting the development of pedagogical strategies that foster integration among different professions and strengthen collaborative practices.

Although IPE is widely recognized as an essential approach for strengthening teamwork and comprehensive health care, its implementation in Brazilian universities still occurs heterogeneously and, in many cases, in a fragmented manner. In this sense, empirical studies that investigate students’ readiness for interprofessional learning contribute to understanding how curricula, academic experiences, and educational trajectories influence the development of collaborative competencies.

Furthermore, national scientific production on readiness for interprofessional learning, especially in public institutions located in the interior regions of the country, remains limited. Considering the regional and institutional specificities of the interior of Ceará, this study seeks to advance knowledge of interprofessional health education, providing support for reflection and the improvement of professional training in alignment with the principles of the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS).

Considering the above, this study aims to analyze the readiness of health course students from the interior of Ceará for interprofessional learning.

Method

This is a quantitative, cross-sectional study conducted with students from five undergraduate health courses: Physical Education, Nursing, Psychology, Odontology, and Medicine, from two public universities located in the interior of the state of Ceará.

The research took place in the municipality of Sobral, Ceará. The municipality of Sobral is located in the Northern Region of the state of Ceará, 235 kilometers from the capital Fortaleza. Sobral has, among several Higher Education Institutions, two public universities: one federal (Universidade Federal do Ceará – Sobral campus) and one state university (Universidade Estadual Vale do Acaraú), which were the study settings.

Considering a population of 1,404 enrolled students, a sample of 385 students to be interviewed was obtained, stratified according to the total number of students in each course. The sample size calculation was performed using OpenEpi – version 3, considering a 95% confidence level (alpha error of 5%), anticipated frequency of 50%, and design effect of 1.0.

Students regularly enrolled in the courses were included, and those who had suspended enrollment during the data collection period or were on maternity leave or health leave were excluded.

Data collection was carried out during June and July 2024 through a form created on the online platform Google Forms®. The application of the form was conducted in person in the classrooms of each course. To invite students to participate in the study, authorization was requested from course coordinators and professors. Data collection occurred at the beginning or at the end of classes, after a presentation of the research, followed by the invitation. Subsequently, a link to the form was provided, which included the Free and Informed Consent Term (FICT) and the questionnaires.

The form consisted of two parts: the first contained 13 questions aimed at the socioeconomic characterization of the students, and the second included the items from the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS), an instrument created by Parsell and Bligh,¹⁰ translated into Portuguese and validated by Peduzzi et al.¹¹ for the evaluation of IPE.

The dependent variable was students’ readiness to develop collaborative competencies, measured through RIPLS factor scores, and the independent variables were sex, race/ethnicity, age, marital status, undergraduate course, academic level, and participation in extracurricular activities.

RIPLS consists of 27 items divided into three factors: (Factor 1) Teamwork and collaboration, reflected in 14 items (items 1-9; 12-16) about readiness for teamwork and learning with other health professionals; (Factor 2) Professional identity, with eight items in total (items 10; 11; 18-22), among which five (items 10; 11; 17; 19; 21) refer to negative positions regarding IPE; and (Factor 3) Patient-centered care, with five items (items 23-27) that reflect readiness to understand patients’ needs.¹¹

Following the guidelines for the application of RIPLS,¹² the form was configured with responses on a five-point Likert scale: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree; (3) neither agree nor disagree; (4) agree; and (5) strongly agree. The analysis was conducted by calculating individual scores (global and by factor). The global score could vary between 27 and 135, and the maximum scores for factors 1, 2, and 3 were 70, 40, and 25, respectively. The higher the score, the greater the readiness, and the lower the score, the lower the readiness and attitudes of students toward IPE.

Factor 1 (Teamwork and collaboration), with 14 items (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15), is related to positive attitudes and readiness for shared learning, teamwork, collaboration, trust, and respect toward professionals from different areas.

Factor 2 (Professional identity), with eight items (10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22), includes four items (10, 16, 17, and 18) that refer to negative attitudes toward interprofessional learning. The other three items (19, 20, and 21) refer to professional autonomy and the clinical objectives of each profession. This factor expresses attitudes toward professional identity, although with a competitive component.

Factor 3 (Patient-centered care), with five items (23, 24, 25, 26, and 27), refers to attitudes and readiness to understand needs from the patient’s perspective, based on relationships of trust, compassion, and cooperation.

The results of Factors 1 and 3, except item 11 of Factor 1, should be interpreted according to the following ranges: comfort zone (3.7-5.0); alert zone (2.3-3.7); and danger zone (1.0-2.3). The results of Factor 2 and item 11 of Factor 1 are interpreted inversely: comfort zone (1.0-2.3); alert zone (2.3-3.7); and danger zone (3.7-5.0).

The collected data were tabulated using Microsoft Excel software (2010) and analyzed using the Jamovi statistical software (version 1.6). Descriptive statistics were used, and data were presented as frequencies, means, and standard deviations. Responses were compared using the paired-samples t test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare more than two groups. Pearson’s correlation test was used to explore correlations between dependent and independent variables. The significance level was set at p<0.05. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of the Universidade Estadual Vale do Acaraú (UVA), opinion nº 6.776.072 and CAAE nº 78501424.9.0000.5053.

Results

A total of 411 students participated in the study, distributed among the courses: Physical Education (18.7%), Nursing (18.2%), Medicine (31.6%), Odontology (13.4%), and Psychology (18%).

Most participants were women (n=238; 57.9%), with a mean age of 21.8 years (SD=3.43), single marital status (94%), and predominantly self-identified as mixed-race (48%). Some participants worked while studying (13.9%) and had previously attended another health-related course (3.4%). Most were in the 5th semester (16.1%), in their first undergraduate degree (96.5%), and participated in some extracurricular activity (65.2%), with extension projects being the most frequently reported (38.4%) (Table 1).

Regarding students’ readiness for interprofessional learning in health education, a statistically significant difference was observed among undergraduate courses. In the analysis of Factor 1 (Teamwork and collaboration), Psychology students showed greater potential for interprofessional collaboration.

In the analysis of Factor 2 (Professional identity), no statistically significant difference was observed among the courses, and Nursing students, followed by Medicine students, presented higher mean scores (Table 1).

In Factor 3 (Patient-centered care), the Physical Education course showed the lowest mean.

Table 1 - Mean scores of the RIPLS scale factors according to the sociodemographic and academic characteristics of the study participants. Sobral (CE), Brazil, 2024.

Variable	N	%	Factor 1 – Teamwork and collaboration (M±SD)	p-value	Factor 2 – Professional identity (M±SD)	p-value	Factor 3 – Patient-centered care (M±SD)	p-value	Total (M±SD)	p-value
Sex
Female	238	57.9	23.7±5.8	0.43	25.0±3.4	0.17	23.6±3.2	0.82	72.6±6.7	0.55
Male	173	42.1	23.7±5.0		23.0±4.1		23.7±3.0		72.9±6.7
Marital status
Single	386	93.9	23.8±5.3	0.345	25.4±3.7	0.10	23.7±3.1	0.33	78.8±6.6	0.49
Common-law marriage	18	04.3	23.9±9.5		24.3±4.1		22.7±3.8		70.9±8.3
Married	07	01.7	20.7±2.0		27.9±1.9		24.6±0.8		73.1±3.2
Self-reported race/color
Mixed-race	198	48.1	24.0±6.0	0.71	25.4±3.4	0.44	23.9±3.0	0.53	73.3±6.7	0.34
White	186	45.2	23.5±5.1		25.4±3.9		23.5±3.3		72.4±6.6
Black	25	06.0	22.0±5.7		29.0±2.8		23.0±2.8		74.0±11.3
Yellow	02	00.4	23.2±4.8		24.8±4.2		23.2±3.3		71.2±6.6
Undergraduate degree program
Physical Education	77	18.7	22.7±5.7	0.045	24.7±3.6	0.243	21.4±5.9	<.001	70.9±8.4	0.006
Nursing	75	18.2	22.8±4.3		26.5±4.0		23.9±1.9		73.1±6.3
Medicine	130	31.6	23.3±6.0		25.2±3.8		24.1±1.8		72.6±6.1
Odontology	55	13.3	22.9±5.7		25.3±0.3		24.1±1.6		72.3±6.2
Psychology	74	18.0	24.8±5.1		25.5±3.5		24.6±1.2		74.9±5.8
Working while studying
Yes	57	13.8	24.0±5.6	0.682	24.3±4.3	0.14	23.3±3.7	0.35	71.6±6.8	0.14
No	354	86.1	23.7±5.5		25.6±3.6		23.7±3.1		72.9±6.7
Health-related undergraduate degree
Yes	14	3.4	23.1±4.4	0.660	25.4±2.8	0.970	23.6±1.8	0.98	72.1±3.4	0.69
No	397	96.5	23.7±5.5		25.4±3.7		23.7±3.2		72.3±6.8
Participate in any extracurricular activities
Yes	110	26.8	22.2±4.1	<.0001	25.7±3.3	0.243	24.0±1.6	0.12	72.0±5.5	0.17
No	301	73.2	24.2±5.8		25.3±3.8		23.5±3.5		73.0±7.0

M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

Source: Prepared by the authors, 2024

Table 2 presents the comparison of the mean scores of the RIPLS factors and the classification of questionnaire items into comfort, alert, and danger zones, according to Rodrigues.¹³

It is noted that in Factor 1 (Teamwork and collaboration), all statements were well evaluated across all courses, except for statement 11 (“Clinical problem-solving skills should only be learned with students from my own course”), which was classified in the alert zone, with means ranging from 4.60 to 4.84.

Statement 12 (“Shared learning with students from other health professions will help me communicate better with patients and other professionals”) was classified in the danger zone for all courses, with low means (ranging from 1.16 to 1.40), demonstrating students’ disagreement with this item.

When analyzing Factor 2 (Professional identity), items 16, 17 and 19 (“It is not necessary for undergraduate health students to learn together”; “The role of other health professionals is mainly to support doctors” and “I would feel uncomfortable if another health student knew more about a topic than I do (clinical objective)”, respectively) were classified in the comfort zone. In statement 18 (“I need to acquire much more knowledge and skills than students from other health professions”), students from Physical Education, Nursing, Odontology, and Psychology were in the comfort zone, while Medicine students were in the alert zone.

Consequently, statements 10 and 20 (“Considering my degree, I do not want to waste my time learning together with students from other health professions” and “I will be able to frequently use my own judgment in my professional role”, respectively) were classified in the alert zone in all courses.

In statement 22 (“My main responsibility as a professional will be to treat my patient”), all courses were in the danger zone. In statement 21 (“Reaching a diagnosis will be the main function of my professional role”), Nursing, Odontology, Medicine, and Psychology were in the danger zone, while only Physical Education was in the alert zone.

Factor 3 (Patient-centered care) showed high mean scores across all items, considering all courses, and was generally classified in the comfort zone.

Table 2 - Comparison of mean scores and standard deviations for the RIPLS factors by undergraduate course, according to the RIPLS items. Sobral (CE), Brazil, 2024 (N=411).

RIPLS items	Physical Education (M±SD / Zone)	Nursing (M±SD / Zone)	Medicine (M±SD / Zone)	Odontology (M±SD / Zone)	Psychology (M±SD / Zone)
FACTOR 2 - PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY
19. I would feel uncomfortable if another health student knew more about a topic than I do. (R)	2.3±1.1/***	2.2±1.1/***	2.0±1.1/***	1.8±1.8/***	2.1±1.2/***
20. I will be able to frequently use my own judgment in my professional role (professional autonomy).	3.2±1.2/***	3.2±1.3/***	3.5±1.2/***	3.4±1.3/***	3.6±1.2/***
21. Reaching a diagnosis will be the main function of my professional role (clinical objective). (R)	3.7±1.2/***	3.8±1.3/***	3.7±1.4/***	3.8±1.1/***	3.82±1.4/***
22. My main responsibility as a professional will be to treat my patient (clinical objective). (R)	4.7±1.3/***	4.8±1.3/***	4.9±1.3/***	4.9±1.3/***	4.97±1.3/***
FACTOR 3 - PATIENT-CENTRED CARE
23. I like to understand the problem from the patient’s perspective (patient situation).	4.3±1.2/***	4.7±0.5/***	4.8±0.5/***	4.8±0.6/***	4.9±0.3/***
24. Establishing a trusting relationship with my patients is important to me (patient situation).	4.3±1.2/***	4.8±0.4/***	4.9±0.4/***	4.9±0.4/***	5.0±0.2/***
25. I try to convey compassion to my patients (patient situation).	4.2±1.2/***	4.8±0.4/***	4.8±0.5/***	4.8±0.4/***	4.8±0.5/***
26. Thinking of the patient as a person is important to indicate the correct treatment (patient situation).	4.3±1.2/***	4.8±0.4/***	4.9±0.4/***	4.9±0.3/***	4.9±0.3/***
27. In my profession, interaction and cooperation skills with patients are necessary (patient situation).	4.3±1.2/***	4.8±0.4/***	4.9±0.4/***	4.9±0.3/***	5.0±0.2/***

M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation.

Factor 2 (reverse-scored items): * = Comfort zone (1.00–2.33); ** = Alert zone (2.34–3.66); *** = Danger zone (3.67–5.00).

Factor 3: * = Danger zone (1.00–2.33); ** = Alert zone (2.34–3.66); *** = Comfort zone (3.67–5.00).

 Discussion

Students from the five undergraduate health courses who participated in this study showed receptiveness and interest in interprofessional learning. This finding indicated the existence of a favorable perspective toward the development of collaborative work among different health professionals, which contributes to comprehensive and qualified patient care.

According to Peduzzi et al.⁴, teamwork in the health field requires interaction and cooperation among professionals, with respect for the specificities of each area, always aiming at a common goal: promoting health and patient well-being. Interprofessional collaboration promotes not only technical-scientific development but also contributes to improving communication and problem-solving skills, enhancing the quality of care provided.

Interprofessional work is composed of different forms of organization, such as teamwork, collaboration, collaborative practice, and network-based work. Teamwork constitutes the core of care production, as the team is responsible for a set of families and assigned users, characterized by common objectives, high interdependence of actions, clarity of roles, and shared identity and responsibility among members.⁴

In view of this, regarding the analysis of the level of agreement and disagreement across the three dimensions of the RIPLS, this study’s results indicated a positive perception of interprofessional collaboration, as observed in the data presented in Factor 1. Although a positive mean was identified for the factor “Teamwork and collaboration”, with all courses demonstrating a favorable stance, respect, and interest in shared learning, challenges were also identified, especially in the Physical Education course, which showed lower readiness for interprofessional work. This finding may be partially explained by the traditional training structure of these professionals, historically more focused on physical performance and sports, with less emphasis on collective health practices and interdisciplinarity.

It is worth highlighting that the recognition of Physical Education as a health profession occurred through Resolution No. 218/97 of the CNS, which enabled the inclusion of these professionals in Family Health Support Centers (Núcleo Ampliado de Saúde da Família e Atenção Básica - NASF-AB). Furthermore, curricular guidelines established that Physical Education graduates would be responsible for prevention, promotion, protection, and rehabilitation of health, aligning with NASF-AB guidelines.¹⁴

However, an important reflection that emerged refers to Higher Education training in Physical Education and whether it adequately prepares students to work in the field of collective health. According to Oliveira et al.¹⁵, Physical Education programs tend to focus more on physical training and sports performance, which may generate gaps in collective health education and interdisciplinary and interprofessional work. This scenario may hinder the integration of these professionals into health teams, which usually involve multiple health professions such as physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, nutritionists, and others whose training is more oriented toward comprehensive patient care.¹⁵ Given this context, professional health education should ensure that the teaching-learning process addresses community health needs and is oriented toward comprehensive care. This path points to the re-signification of the hegemonic model of health education, emphasizing collaborative teamwork.¹⁶

Subsequently, data analysis related to Professional Identity (Factor 2), which addressed attitudes regarding professional autonomy, interprofessional collaboration, and role perception in the health context, revealed important nuances about the training and values of students from different health areas. Considering the interpretation of comfort, alert and danger zones, trends and critical points related to professional identity and interprofessional collaboration were observed.

Items 16, 17 and 19 (“It is not necessary for undergraduate health students to learn together”, “The role of other health professionals is mainly to support doctors”, and “I would feel uncomfortable if another health student knew more about a topic than I do”, respectively) presented means in the comfort zone for all evaluated areas, suggesting that students from different professions did not perceive interprofessional collaboration negatively. On the contrary, they recognized the importance of shared learning and understanding perspectives from other health fields.

This behavior is particularly important in an increasingly interdisciplinary health context, in which collaboration is essential for quality patient care. A patient-centered approach requires professionals to understand not only clinical aspects but also psychological, social, and cultural dimensions involved in care. The fact that students from all areas demonstrated a favorable attitude toward learning with other professionals suggests a willingness to integrate different forms of knowledge and practices, which may benefit the development of a collaborative culture in health environments.⁴

In statement 18 (“I need to acquire much more knowledge and skills than students from other health professions”), only Medicine students remained in the alert zone, while students from other courses remained in the comfort zone. This perception among Medicine students may be related to the intensive focus of medical training, which often emphasizes technical and specialized knowledge rather than broader interprofessional practices.

The study by McFadyen, Maclare, and Webster¹⁷ also observed that Medicine students frequently recognized the need to improve communication and collaboration skills with other health professionals, suggesting greater awareness of these gaps in their educational process compared to students from other health fields.

Regarding practical training, a study by Freeth et al.¹⁸ explored differences in interprofessional learning among students from various health professions and identified that Medicine students, due to their intensive practical training and focus on individual patient treatment, perceived a greater need to develop interprofessional skills such as communication, teamwork, and understanding the roles of other health professionals.

Regarding Factor 3, “Patient-centered care”, it was observed that across all items and professions, the mean score was above 4, classifying them in the comfort zone. This dimension of the RIPLS addressed aspects related to professional-user trust relationships and the focus of care on the person rather than the disease or diagnosis. The results highlighted that Psychology students achieved the highest score, followed by Odontology and Medicine students.

It is known that Psychology training strongly emphasizes the development of interpersonal skills such as empathy, active listening, and understanding others’ emotions and needs, strengthening humanistic and empathetic practices. These skills are essential for patient-centered care, which places the patient’s experience at the center of attention, and also contribute to effective communication skills necessary for building trust with patients.

Active and empathetic listening by all individuals involved in care is essential for defining and delivering health services. The main objective is to enable patients to have control over their care through access to knowledge, team members’ skills, and understanding of available resources to achieve the therapeutic plan. Respectful listening to everyone’s needs shapes care delivery, considering that the user is the focus of health professionals’ work and a holder of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Participation in health management can guide action planning, reinforcing the idea of partnership between users and professionals within the community.¹⁹

Person-centered care has been globally recognized as an important component of patient safety. It has impacted the reorganization of health systems by encouraging partnerships between users, multiprofessional health teams, managers, and policymakers, aiming to promote progress in the health sector.²⁰

Rodrigues, Portela, and Malik¹³ reinforced that patient-centered care has produced positive effects on clinical outcomes, stimulated cooperation, and supported the consolidation of patient rights. It represents a care model that seeks to break away from remaining paradigms of the biomedical model and overcome fragmentation of care.

Initially, it was expected that students participating in extracurricular activities such as extension projects, research, internships, or PET would demonstrate greater readiness for interprofessional learning. However, no association was found. Nonetheless, in Factor 1, related to teamwork and collaboration, a statistically significant difference was observed. Most students did not participate in extracurricular activities, but still recognized the importance of interprofessional work.

Although participation in extracurricular activities such as extension projects may represent a potential opportunity for interprofessional learning, it does not automatically guarantee its occurrence. For effective association between these activities and readiness for interprofessional learning, more structured planning would be necessary, aiming to integrate different areas of knowledge, as well as institutional support that encourages and values collaboration among professionals from different backgrounds.

The absence of association between participation in extracurricular activities and greater readiness for interprofessional learning suggests that, although relevant, their potential to promote collaborative practices depends on more systematic integration and institutional support capable of effectively fostering integration and knowledge sharing among health courses.

In this context, it becomes essential for educational institutions to strengthen interprofessional education from the early stages of training, promoting curricula that value collaborative work in a practical and experiential manner. The implementation of pedagogical strategies integrating different health programs, such as joint internships, interdisciplinary extension projects, and multiprofessional initiatives, is fundamental to preparing students for interprofessional practice in health care. Furthermore, recognition and appreciation of different fields of knowledge constitute essential pillars in academic training, aiming to build more integrated, qualified, and prepared health teams capable of addressing the complexities of patient care.

As limitations, it should be noted that data were obtained through students’ self-reports, which may have resulted in perception and social desirability biases. Additionally, the study was conducted in only two public universities located in a municipality in the interior of Ceará, which may limit the generalization of results to other academic and regional contexts. Future investigations incorporating qualitative approaches may contribute to a deeper understanding of experiences, meanings, and challenges faced by students in the interprofessional learning process.

Conclusion

This study’s results demonstrated that undergraduate students in health programs show readiness for interprofessional learning. However, differences related to the technical-pedagogical and structural characteristics of undergraduate programs may still interfere with this learning process.

Finally, the need for continuous and systematic revision of curricular guidelines in health undergraduate programs is highlighted, aiming to promote training that, in addition to technically qualifying future professionals, fosters a collaborative mindset and an understanding of the importance of teamwork in the context of comprehensive health care and the provision of quality assistance to the population. Thus, the IPE into academic curricula, in both public and private institutions, should be considered a priority to promote training more aligned with the needs of the SUS and the realities of public health, contributing to the development of more effective, integrated health teams capable of meeting population needs in a resolutive, safe, and collaborative manner.

Authors Contributions

Study conception:Tiara Bruna Teixeira Teodósio; Mariana Ramalho de Farias.Data collection: Tiara Bruna Teixeira Teodósio; Abenor Nogueira Neto. Data analysis and interpretation:Tiara Bruna Teixeira Teodósio; Abenor Nogueira Neto; Luana Maria Dias da Silveira; Mariana Ramalho de Farias.. Manuscript writing:Tiara Bruna Teixeira Teodósio; Abenor Nogueira Neto; Luana Maria Dias da Silveira; Mariana Ramalho de Farias. Franklin Delano Soares Forte; Jacques Antonio Cavalcante Maciel; Ana Karine Macedo Teixeira.. Critical revision of the manuscript:Tiara Bruna Teixeira Teodósio; Mariana Ramalho de Farias; Franklin Delano Soares Forte; Jacques Antonio Cavalcante Maciel; Ana Karine Macedo Teixeira. Approval of the final version of the text:Tiara Bruna Teixeira Teodósio; Abenor Nogueira Neto; Luana Maria Dias da Silveira; Mariana Ramalho de Farias. Franklin Delano Soares Forte; Jacques Antonio Cavalcante Maciel; Ana Karine Macedo Teixeira.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that there was no conflict of interest.

Funding

Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento (FUNCAP).

References

1. Organização Mundial da Saúde. Rede de Profissões de Saúde - Enfermagem e Obstetrícia. Departamento de Recursos Humanos para a Saúde. Marco para Ação em Educação Interprofissional e Prática Colaborativa. Genebra: OMS; 2010. Available from: http://www.paho.org/bra/images/stories/documentos/marco_para_acao.pdf

2. Oliveira KVR, Santos SKSL. Aprendizagem baseada em projetos como estratégia para o desenvolvimento de atividades não presenciais no ensino médio integrado em informática no IFB Campus Brasília. Rev Bras Educ Prof Tecnol. 2022;2(22):e11815. doi: https://doi.org/10.15628/rbept.2022.11815

3. Fernandes SF, Trigueiro JG, Barreto MAF, Carvalho REFL de, Silva MRF da, Moreira TMM, et al. Interprofessional work in health in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP [Internet]. 2021;55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-220X2021030103744

4. Peduzzi M, Agreli HLF, Silva JAM, Souza HS. Trabalho em equipe: uma revisita ao conceito e a seus desdobramentos no trabalho interprofissional. Trab Educ Saúde. 2020;18(Suppl 1):e0024678. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-7746-sol00246

5. Casanova IA, Batista NA, Moreno LR. A Educação Interprofissional e a prática compartilhada em programas de residência multiprofissional em Saúde. Interface - Comunicação, Saúde, Educação [Internet]. 2018;22(suppl 1):1325–37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622016.0680

6. Fumagalli IHT, Sudré GA, Matumoto S. Práticas colaborativas interprofissionais em cuidados de saúde primários: um protocolo de scoping review. Revista de Enfermagem Referência [Internet]. 2021;Série V(6):e20130. doi: https://doi.org/10.12707/RV20130

7. Barbosa AR, Mourão LC, Clementina A, Cristina I, Lima PM. Educação Interprofissional na formação dos profissionais de saúde à luz da Análise Institucional. Revista Pró-UniverSUS [Internet]. 2023 Aug 31;14(2):108–16. Available from: https://editora.univassouras.edu.br/index.php/RPU/article/view/3618

8. Toassi RFC, Meireles E, Peduzzi M. Interprofessional practices and readiness for interprofessional learning among health students and graduates in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil: a cross-sectional study. J Interprof Care. 2021;35(3):391-399. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1773419

9. I Conferência Livre Nacional de Interprofissionalidade. Estratégias para o fortalecimento da Educação e do Trabalho Interprofissional no SUS [Internet]. [S. l.]: TV Abrasco; 2024 Aug 20 [cited 2024 Aug 20]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/live/E0ppnRtnZEQ?si=ASoHrSNZY0T8RGSa

10. Parsell G, Bligh J. The development of a questionnaire to assess the readiness of health care students for interprofessional learning (RIPLS). Med Educ. 1999;33(2):95-100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00298.x

11. Peduzzi M, Norman IJ, Coster S, Meireles E. Adaptação transcultural e validação da Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale no Brasil. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2015;49(spe 2):e002. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-623420150000800002

12. Peduzzi M. O SUS é interprofissional. Interface (Botucatu). 2016;20(56):199-201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622015.0383

13. Rodrigues JLSQ, Portela MC, Malik AM. Agenda para a pesquisa sobre o cuidado centrado no paciente no Brasil. Cien Saude Colet. 2019;24(11):4263-4275. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320182411.04182018

14. BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Cadernos da Atenção Básica, nº 27. Diretrizes do NASF: Núcleo de Apoio à Saúde da Família. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2010. Available from: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/caderno_atencao_basica_diretrizes_nasf.pdf

15. Oliveira VH, Azevedo KPM, Medeiros GCBS, Knackfuss MI, Piuvezam G. Desafios do profissional de educação física nos Núcleos Ampliados de Saúde da Família e Atenção Básica: uma revisão sistemática da literatura brasileira. Cad Saúde Colet. 2022;30(1):108-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-462X202230010340

16. Feitosa CAL, Gomes NPCP, Silva RM. Disponibilidade para aprendizagem interprofissional em cursos de saúde em uma faculdade do nordeste brasileiro. J Health Biol Sci. 2023;11(1):1-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.12662/2317-3076jhbs.v11i1.4346.p1-13.2023

17. McFadyen AK, Maclaren WM, Webster VS. The Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS): an alternative remodelled sub-scale structure and its reliability. J Interprof Care. 2007;21(4):433-443. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820701352531

18. Freeth D, Hammick M, Koppel I, Reeves S, Barr H. A critical review of evaluations of interprofessional education. London: Higher Education Academy, Health Sciences and Practice Network; 2002. Occasional Paper No. 2. Available from: https://neipc.ufes.br/sites/neipc.ufes.br/files/field/anexo/freeth-d.-hammick-m.-koppel-i.-reeves-s.-barr-h.-al-2002-a-critical-review-of-evaluations-of-interprofessional-education.pdf.

19. Tedesco MFM. Cuidado centrado no paciente e sua aplicabilidade em um hospital público universitário [dissertação]. São Paulo: Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo; 2019. Available from: https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/teses-dissertacoes/cuidado-centrado-no-paciente-e-sua-aplicabilidade-em-um-hospital-publico

20. Gomes PHG, Mendes Júnior WV. O cuidado centrado no paciente nos serviços de saúde: estratégias de governos e organizações não governamentais. Rev Acredit. 2017;7(13):23-43. Available from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6130783.pdf

Corresponding Author

Abenor Nogueira Neto

E-mail: abenorneto@gmail.com

The Author(s) 2026.  This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. License text for use: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pt_BR