A Scoping Review of Interprofessional Education in Saudi Arabia: Outcomes, Barriers, and Implementation Challenges

Introduction

Interprofessional education (IPE) was first introduced in healthcare education in the late 1990s. Harden et al argued that rather than questioning the effectiveness of IPE, efforts should be directed towards its successful implementation in healthcare education.¹ The IPE movement was advocated by major health organisations, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO).^2,3 The primary goals of developing IPE are to relieve tension between specialties, improve communication skills, and enhance teamwork, ultimately contributing to a common goal: “better and safer patient care”.⁴ According to the WHO, the term “Interprofessional education” involves educators and learners from two or more health professions and their foundational disciplines who jointly create and foster a collaborative learning environment. The goal of these efforts is to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that result in interprofessional team behaviour and competence.⁵

Like Europe and the United States, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has taken significant steps towards developing its healthcare system.⁶ This progress has been supported by an increased investment in healthcare-related education. Many countries in the MENA region are showing a growing interest in exploring IPE.^7–9 Potentially taking the lead, Saudi Arabia is currently undergoing major transformations in all areas, including healthcare education.¹⁰ This transformation, along with its economic impact, has positioned Saudi Arabia as a key player in advancing IPE in the region.¹¹ Interest in IPE within Saudi Arabia began with the expansion of healthcare education from the late 1990s to the early 2000.¹²

Consequently, various studies exploring IPE have been published in the context of healthcare education and expansion. This has been influenced by the significant transformation in Saudi Arabia’s healthcare education system. Documenting and analysing the baseline status of IPE in Saudi Arabia is essential. A significant evidence gap exists regarding the implementation and outcomes of Interprofessional Education (IPE) within health profession programs in Saudi Arabia. Our comprehensive search revealed no longitudinal studies or intervention-based research that could serve as an empirical foundation for this review. Therefore, the current study aimed to evaluate IPE research in health professionals’ programs in Saudi Arabia, to identify the barriers, and challenges facing IPE implementation, and to explore the outcomes of IPE implementation in the country. As such a scoping review approach was used. This is the first review of its kind in this area and serves to highlight the educational transformation under Saudi 2030 vision.¹⁰ Exploring the barriers and challenges of IPE implementation in Saudi Arabia and its reported outcomes can help guide future efforts in revising and updating healthcare educational programs.¹³

Methods

Study Design

This study is a scoping review of Saudi studies on IPE, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).¹⁴ Protocol registration was not performed.

Eligibility Criteria

All studies referencing IPE in Saudi Arabia were included; non-human studies, editorials, and review articles were excluded.

Information Sources

The following databases were searched from 2000 to February 2024: Medline database (via OVID interface), Science Direct interface, EBSCO, and PubMed. No language restrictions were applied. Other studies were identified by reviewing the references of eligible articles.

Search and Selection of Sources of Evidence

Databases were searched using the following keywords: (“Interprofessional” OR “Inter-professional” OR “Multiprofessional” OR “Multi-professional” OR “shared” OR “Multidisciplinary” OR “interdisciplinary” OR “Inter disciplinary”) AND (“education” OR “learning” OR “teaching” OR “understanding” OR “instructions” OR “knowledge” OR “Informations” OR “training”) AND (“Saudi Arabia” OR “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” OR “Saudi”). The search strategy was modified according to the requirements of each database. Data were screened for inclusion in duplicate and articles that met the inclusion criteria were identified.

Data Charting Process

A data collection sheet was constructed prior to including the author, year of publication, study design methodology, participant demographics, intervention (if any), baseline characteristics of population, outcome, or measures of effect (where available).

Synthesis of Results

Only a description of different studies involving inter-professional education in Saudi Arabia was provided.

Results

A total of 5,174 records were identified during the initial screening of four databases (Medline: 182, EBSCO: 1,059, PubMed: 1,007, and Science Direct: 29,526). After removing duplicates and review, a final number of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1; PRISMA Flow Diagram). Sixteen studies evaluated interprofessional collaboration, which will be explored in the second part of this scorpion review. Five major disciplines lead IPE studies: applied medical sciences, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and dentistry. Most published research has been conducted through collaborations between multiple specialties. However, four studies were conducted within a single profession, specifically in nursing. The total number of students involved in these studies was 3,630, and 1,096 faculty members. Eighteen academic institutions were included in the study. The frequency of involvement in each specialty was as follows: applied medical sciences (N=13, 62%); Nursing (N=12, 57%); Medicine (N=11, 52%); Pharmacy (N=8, 38%); Dentistry (N=3, 14%); and Paramedics (N=1, 5%) (see Table 1). A total of 23 tools were used to evaluate interprofessional IPE among students and faculty members. Almost half (48%) of the participants had used the Readiness for Inter-Professional Learning Scale.¹⁵ Other IPE assessment tools were used by one-third of the participants to evaluate IPE (26%), followed by author-designed tools (13%), theory and topic guides (9%), and a designed model for faculty development (4%) (see Figure 2). Although the search was conducted using 2000 as the starting point, actual research publications started in 2015, with a peak in the number of publications occurring in 2022 (24% of all publications) (see Figure 3).

Figure 1 Search Flow Diagram. Notes: *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers). **If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools. PRISMA figure adapted from Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S et al. PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39.14

Figure 2 Tools Used in Saudi Arabia for Interprofessional Education-Related Research. Abbreviations: RIPLE, Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale; IPE, Interprofessional education; ESHPE, Essential Skills in Health Professions Education.

Figure 3 Number of publications in Saudi Arabia regarding interprofessional education.

Figure 4 Interprofessional education research by city/region of Saudi Arabia.

Table 1 Summary of Saudi Arabian Studies Reporting Interprofessional Education

More than half of the published studies used a cross-sectional design (n=14, 67%). This was followed by quasi-experimental studies (n=4, 19%), qualitative studies (n=2, 10%), and finally, another study (n=1, 5%) in which a model was developed to enhance faculty awareness of IPE. Regarding geographical distribution, more than half of the studies focused on students or faculty in the Riyadh region (n=11, 52%), followed by Jeddah (n=5, 24%), Dammam (n=4, 19%), Madinah (n=2, 10%), Taif (n=1, 5%), Jizan (n=1, 5%), and Qassim (n=1, 5%) (see Figure 4).

Discussion

IPE plays a vital role in improving patient outcomes by enhancing the quality of healthcare delivered through the diverse skills and competencies of healthcare teams. Effective IPE fosters collaboration among healthcare professionals and ensures a more coordinated approach to patient care. This scooping review highlights the increasing focus on IPE in Saudi Arabia, with most studies assessing student readiness for interprofessional learning. Although the findings generally indicate a positive attitude towards IPE, some challenges still exist. One major challenge is the inconsistency in IPE implementation across institutions and regions. Most of the studies included in this review were conducted in the central region, suggesting an uneven distribution of IPE initiatives. This geographical distribution reduces the generalisability of the findings and emphasises the need for nationwide strategies to ensure a more structured and widespread implementation of IPE.

Several important conclusions about the perceptions and benefits of implementation were found in the scoping review of 21 articles on IPE in Saudi Arabia (see Table 2). Overall, instructors and students had a positive view of IPE, as they understood how it may improve interdisciplinary collaboration, teamwork, and holistic patient care. All healthcare students included in these studies demonstrated readiness for IPE, with no noticeable variance in readiness across professions. Improved knowledge, enhanced collaborative abilities, and a deeper understanding of professional roles and responsibilities are some of the advantages of IPE. However, challenges such as psychometric limitations in assessment tools (eg, the RIPLS-Arabic version), logistical barriers such as the time and effort required for curriculum integration, and the need for clearer role definitions among healthcare professionals have been identified. Incorporating IPE into the formal curriculum, adopting various teaching methods, encouraging faculty participation, and raising awareness of professional obligations are some recommendations for effective implementation. Furthermore, medical students and graduates agreed that IPE could improve both patient care and practitioner satisfaction. The review emphasises broad support for IPE while also emphasising the importance of structured approaches to overcome implementation challenges and optimise its educational and clinical benefits.

Table 2 Outcomes/Limitations

The limitations and challenges of the included studies include small sample sizes, narrow sample characteristics (such as single-gender representation), focus on solo programs or a single university, methodological concerns (predominance of cross-sectional studies), data-related issues, time constraints, and limited external validity.

Conclusion

A significant barrier to IPE integration is the challenge of embedding it into existing curricula. Many healthcare programs operate independently, which makes it difficult to implement shared learning experiences. Addressing this requires institutional commitment, faculty development, and structured frameworks that promote interprofessional engagement beyond traditional coursework, such as extracurricular activities, clinical training, and faculty-led initiatives. Despite these challenges, this review highlights the promising opportunities for strengthening IPE in Saudi Arabia. IPE can be effectively integrated into healthcare education by addressing implementation barriers, fostering faculty collaboration, and expanding research beyond student readiness. This will cultivate a workforce better prepared for collaborative practice, ultimately enhancing healthcare delivery and improving patient outcomes.