Table 3

Summary of learning outcomes

Outcomes*Main findings (as reported by the authors)StudyQuality of the evidence*
Level 1▸“There were no statistically significant differences.” page 27
▸“Mean ratings of participants’ perceptions were highest for case study discussions and formal presentations, and lowest, but still high, for multimedia presentations.” page 27
▸“Participants’ ratings of the usefulness of the mentorship component of the program reflected that mentorship opportunities were extremely useful for knowledge transfer.” page 28
33Very low quality
Level 2a▸“Students had an increased appreciation of the importance of teamwork and client-centred care when working with people with dementia and complex health-care needs.”
▸“Furthermore, the qualitative results supported an increase in interprofessional socialisation and values, which foster collaborative teamwork.” page 92
31Low quality
▸“Results suggest that individuals who have worked longer in the health care system are more likely to perceive the value of teams in the pursuit of quality care and to develop improved attitudes about geriatric care as a consequence of educational interventions.” page 15532
▸“Improved attitudes toward interprofessional teamwork and collaboration were evident in trainees’ responses to open-ended questions about the experience.” page 53634
▸“Student attitudes toward health care teams were more positive after the symposium.” page 40536
Level 2b▸“Results … demonstrate that more than 4 hours of training are required to demonstrate self-reported improvements in team skills and attitudes about the costs of team care.” page 15232Low quality
▸“There were statistically significant increases in self-reported knowledge of and ability to assess and manage cognitive impairment, confidence, comfort level in speaking to patients and caregivers about memory problems and the ability of participants’ FHT to manage cognitive impairment independently.” page 2833
▸“Significant outcomes of this program included increased knowledge about AD on the multiple choice test in the nurse practitioner students.” page 53534
▸“There has been a significant improvement in the learners’ confidence in managing issues relevant to this patient group…”“The course evaluation and posters also suggested positive changes in knowledge and attitude.” page 49935
Level 3▸“There were no statistically significant differences...” page 27“Practice changes were reported more frequently for use of standardised tools for assessing cognitive impairment and executive functioning, screening for fitness to drive and use of a clinical reasoning model.” page 2833Very low quality
Level 4a▸“All but 1 of the participating FHTs (number=23) established a memory clinic within their primary care setting that was sustainable over time.” page 2833Very low quality
Level 4b
  • High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: any estimate of effect is very uncertain. *GRADE Working Group rating system.28 ,29 AcD, academic detailing; AD, Alzheimer's disease; ATHCTS, Attitudes Toward Healthcare Teams Scale; FHT, family health centre; ITT, interdisciplinary team training.