Interprofessional education at four joint medical and welfare universities: A comparison of face-to-face and distance learning.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of face-to-face and distance learning in interprofessional education. Methods: We conducted a survey using the Japanese version of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) to compare face-to-face and distance learning among students from four joint medical and welfare universities participating in interprofessional education (IPE). Faculty members who participated in both face-to-face and distance learning were also surveyed for free descriptions of the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face and distance learning; their responses were then coded and categorized. Results: In both face-to-face and distance learning, the RIPLS overall and "teamwork and collaboration" scores significantly increased after class compared to before class. There was a significant increase in "IPE opportunities" in face-to-face learning. There was little change in "uniqueness of profession" before and after class in both face-to-face and distance learning. The difference in the overall scores before and after class was significantly larger in face-to-face learning than in distance learning. The advantages of face-to-face learning included smooth communication and discussions. Distance learning was useful for connecting universities across large distances; however, there were disadvantages, such as less smooth communication and discussions and difficulty maintaining concentration. Conclusion: Face-to-face learning may be more effective than distance learning. Distance learning had issues with "IPE opportunities," while both face-to-face and distance classes had issues with "uniqueness of profession."