Caracterización de las experiencias de educación interprofesional en formación en salud en la Universidad de São Paulo

Costa, Jaqueline Bissolati; Mazzi, Nathalia Romeu de; Peduzzi, Marina; Germani, Ana Claudia Camargo Gonçalves; Silva, Jaqueline Alcântara Marcelino; Agreli, Heloise Lima Fernandes; Nascimento, Ariana Gomes; Belber, Gisele Silvestre; Leonello, Valéria Marli

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Rev. esc. enferm. USP 57 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2023-0118en copiar

Caracterización de las experiencias de educación interprofesional en formación en salud en la Universidad de São Paulo

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMEN

Objetivo:

Mapear las experiencias de Educación Interprofesional (EIP) en Salud en el campus de São Paulo de la Universidad de São Paulo.

Método:

Se trata de un estudio descriptivo, exploratorio, con abordaje cuantitativo y recolección de datos por medio de cuestionario online dirigido a profesores de ocho unidades de enseñanza y 14 cursos de salud. Los datos se analizaron mediante frecuencias absolutas y porcentuales.

Resultados:

La mayoría de los profesores no participa en experiencias de EIP (70,4%). La mayoría de las experiencias tienen entre seis y diez años de antigüedad, involucran hasta cuatro profesores y pequeños grupos de estudiantes, en su mayoría actividades extracurriculares o de extensión. Las estrategias de enseñanza y evaluación son diversas y están abiertas a estudiantes de todos los cursos.

Conclusión:

Las experiencias de EIP involucran a un número reducido de estudiantes y profesores y, aunque consolidadas en términos de oferta de tiempo, se limitan a espacios extracurriculares. Factores como la mejora del apoyo institucional y el desarrollo de las docentes se señalan como importantes para avanzar en el fortalecimiento de la EIP en el contexto analizado.

DESCRIPTORES
Enseñanza; Educación Interprofesional; Encuestas y Cuestionarios

DESCRIPTOR	NABSOLUTE (%)
Number of teachers – classes	N total = 34
One	5 (14.7)
Two	6 (17.6)
Three to four	11 (32.4)
Five to six	4 (11.8)
More than six	8 (23.5)
Number of students involved	N total = 33
Up to 20	10 (30.3)
21 – 40	7 (21.2)
41 – 60	7 (21.2)
61 – 80	3 (9.1)
81 or more	6 (18.2)
No data	1 (3)
Course of the students involved ¹ Note: 1Multiple answer – the sum of the percentages does not add up to 100%. The sum of the percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The sample consisted of 37 teachers who said they participated in initiatives on the subject, but only 30 described the experiences they had implemented.	N total = 34
Psychology	17 (50.0)
Medicine	16 (47.1)
Physiotherapy	15 (44.1)
Nursing	15 (44.1)
Nutrition	14 (41.2)
Public Health	13 (38.2)
Pharmacy	12 (35.3)
Occupational therapy	12 (35.3)
Speech therapy	11 (32.4)
Dentistry	10 (29.4)
Gerontology	9 (26.5)
Obstetrics	9 (26.5)
Physical education and health	8 (23.5)
Physical education and sports	7 (20.6)
Others	15 (44.1)
Course of the teachers involved ¹ Note: 1Multiple answer – the sum of the percentages does not add up to 100%. The sum of the percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The sample consisted of 37 teachers who said they participated in initiatives on the subject, but only 30 described the experiences they had implemented.	N total = 34
Nursing	11 (32.4)
Nutrition	11 (32.4)
Medicine	11 (32.4)
Public Health	10 (29.4)
Psychology	10 (29.4)
Pharmacy	9 (26.5)
Physiotherapy	8 (23.5)
Dentistry	8 (23.5)
Occupational Therapy	7 (20.6)
Physical education and health	5 (14.7)
Speech therapy	5 (14.7)
Gerontology	5 (14.7)
Obstetrics	4 (11.8)
Physical education and sports	4 (11.8)
Outros	4 (11.8)
Teaching/learning strategy adopted ¹ Note: 1Multiple answer – the sum of the percentages does not add up to 100%. The sum of the percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The sample consisted of 37 teachers who said they participated in initiatives on the subject, but only 30 described the experiences they had implemented.	N total = 34
Group discussion	24 (70.6)
Dialogic lecture	21 (61.8)
Text discussion	16 (47.1)
Seminar	15 (44.1)
Case study	14 (41.2)
Practical class	12 (35.3)
Problematization	12 (35.3)
Project-based learning	11 (32.4)
Team-Based Learning	10 (29.4)
Problem-Based Learning	10 (29.4)
Lecture	9 (26.5)
Simulation	7 (20.6)
Other	7 (20.6)
Teaching/learning assessment strategy adopted ¹ Note: 1Multiple answer – the sum of the percentages does not add up to 100%. The sum of the percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The sample consisted of 37 teachers who said they participated in initiatives on the subject, but only 30 described the experiences they had implemented.	N total = 24
Collective production	10 (41.7)
Field diary	9 (37.5)
Seminar	8 (33.3)
Written test	3 (12.5)
Portfolio	1 (4.2)
Simulation	1 (4.2)
Other	10 (41.7)
No data	10 (41.7)
Strategy used for the student to evaluate the experience ¹ Note: 1Multiple answer – the sum of the percentages does not add up to 100%. The sum of the percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The sample consisted of 37 teachers who said they participated in initiatives on the subject, but only 30 described the experiences they had implemented.	N total = 34
Meetings/conversations with students	23 (67.6)
Specific instrument with questions	11 (32.4)
No evaluation	4 (11.8)
Other	9 (26.5)
Time (years) that the IPE initiative has been running – classes	N total = 32
1 to 5 years	10 (32.3)
6 to 10 years	14 (45.2)
11 years or more	7 (22.6)
No data	3 (9.3)
Moment in which IPE takes place	N total = 34
Open to all stages of the student’s education	13 (38.2)
At the end of the course	4 (11.8)
At the beginning of the course	1 (2.9)
During the course	16 (47.1)
The initiative is linked to: ¹ Note: 1Multiple answer – the sum of the percentages does not add up to 100%. The sum of the percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The sample consisted of 37 teachers who said they participated in initiatives on the subject, but only 30 described the experiences they had implemented.	N total = 34
To Teaching (non-compulsory subject/axis/module)	17 (50.0)
To Extension/Community Reach-out	16 (47.1)
To Teaching (compulsory subject/axis/module)	12 (35.3)
Venue of the initiative ¹ Note: 1Multiple answer – the sum of the percentages does not add up to 100%. The sum of the percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The sample consisted of 37 teachers who said they participated in initiatives on the subject, but only 30 described the experiences they had implemented.	N total = 34
Classroom	19 (55.9)
Community/territory	12 (35.3)
School	9 (26.5)
Basic Health Unit/Family Health Unit	7 (20.6)
Laboratory	7 (20.6)
Hospital	5 (14.7)
Other	7 (20.6)
This initiative is provided for in the Course’s Pedagogical Project (PPC)	N total = 34
Yes	22 (64.7)
No	8 (23.5)
I don’t know	4 (11.8)
Does the teacher coordinate the initiative?	N total = 34
No	3 (8.8)
Yes	31 (91.2)

Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Enfermagem Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 419 , 05403-000 São Paulo - SP/ Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 11) 3061-7553, - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: reeusp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author: Jaqueline Bissolati Costa Rua David de Sousa, 20 A, Vila Rica, 03912-220 – São Paulo, SP, Brazil, Jaqueline.bissolati.monteiro@usp.br