This systematic review will be conducted as outlined by the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and reported as per the updated PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2015 statement [13-15]. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024506081) and the PRISMA Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist was used to guide this protocol submission [15]. If any deviations occur from this protocol, this will be reported in the final manuscript.

Studies will be selected according to the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework and will be limited to those conducted between 2000 and 2024 to reflect contemporary educational practices and the prominence of IPE in rehabilitation professions' curricula. This was aligned with the rise in implementation of IPE initiatives in the 2000s across health care systems—such as in Canada where IPE and collaboration began to gain traction and were reported to be “essential to achieving effective delivery of health care” [16]. Furthermore, prelicensure rehabilitation training program curricula underwent stark changes in the 2000s, as seen with the World Confederation for Physical Therapy developing new guidelines for entry-level physical therapy education between 2003 and 2011 [16,17].

For title and abstract screening, inclusion criteria were defined by whether the abstract and title addressed the following three questions: (1) “Was there an IPE intervention performed?” (2) “Were multiple health care professions' prelicensure students represented in the study?” (3) “Did the study take place in a health care or health care education setting?” Studies that did not answer “yes” to all 3 statements were excluded. These 3 qualifying questions were derived from the PICO framework to facilitate the screening process. Similarly, in full-text screening, all 3 questions must be satisfied (eg, “yes”) before the studies could be included in this review (Multimedia Appendices 1 and 2).

Studies evaluating prelicensure students in entry-to-practice rehabilitation training programs will be included. Rehabilitation disciplines will be defined according to the WHO, including “physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and audiologists, orthotists and prosthetists, clinical psychologists, physical medicine and rehabilitation doctors, and rehabilitation nurses” [12]. Studies with participants including only practicing rehabilitation professionals will be excluded. For example, registered physiotherapists involved in an IPE opportunity for their professional development requirements.

IPE interventions will be included if presenting two or more rehabilitation science students engaging in an active exchange of information and participation in activities aimed at improving communication and collaboration skills, as per the WHO and the Cuff 2013 definitions [4,18]. Interventions may take place within various settings including large group classes, small group tutorials, clinical settings, and digital platforms [3]. Models of learning may include team-based learning, simulation, and student-led interprofessional clinics [3]. Additional IPE settings and modes of learning not mentioned above may still be included, as long as they satisfy the IPE intervention criteria mentioned above [4,18].

Having a control or comparator group is not a requirement for inclusion in this review. If the study has a control group, the intervention may include usual teaching, learning practice, or any other type of intervention, excluding IPE.

A search strategy was developed in consultation with a health sciences librarian at McMaster University to ensure it captured the PICO elements of the research question. To develop this search strategy, the authors identified a set of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and keywords by examining previous systematic reviews for topics related to IPE, rehabilitation health care personnel, and learning, to find terms linked to these 3 concepts [10,24]; these were then verified with the health sciences librarian. The combination of terms, including the necessary vocabulary and targeted MeSH terms, were trialed in MEDLINE and was similar to: (“health science learners” OR “health science students”) AND (“interprofessional education” OR “interprofessional learning”). The full search string for MEDLINE is available in Multimedia Appendix 4. MEDLINE was chosen as the database to trial the initial search as it is widely considered to be the gold standard for health-related literature searches [25]. Additionally, MEDLINE is most often used as a starting point in systematic review searching due to its extensive collection of biomedical and health-related literature [13,25].

Following the initial search on MEDLINE in February 2024, the search was translated to 4 additional databases including Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and AMED. These additional databases were selected as they contain education and rehabilitation profession-specific literature relevant to this review. The databases were searched between January 1, 2000, and March 8, 2024, to include IPE interventions and studies after the implemented changes in prelicensure rehabilitation training program curricula in the 2000s [17].

Literature search results were downloaded from the databases and imported into EndNote 21 (Clarivate) for a first line of duplication removal. The remaining citations were uploaded into Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation) for further duplication removal, followed by title or abstract, and full-text screening. Covidence is a web-based collaboration software platform that streamlines the production of systematic and other literature reviews.

Before engaging in the formal screening process, title and abstract screening were pilot-tested by all authors by reviewing the first 30 texts as a group, ensuring agreement and consistency between all reviewers. According to the recently published best practice guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, it is recommended that abstract screening take place by screening 20 to 30 abstracts to ensure the review team reaches consensus [26]. Three pairs of reviewers (ED, GD, JP, KD, RC, SF, and ET) screened the remainder of the titles and abstracts for inclusion criteria (Multimedia Appendix 1). Each study required consensus between 2 blinded reviewers before a final decision to include or exclude was made. Disagreement resolution was first attempted by discussion, followed by a decision by a third reviewer (SQ, SW, and AO) if consensus cannot be achieved. Following the completion of the title and abstract screening, the full-text screening process included pilot testing, independent reviews, and disagreement resolution using the same framework as the title and abstract screening (Multimedia Appendix 2).

Data extraction was pilot-tested by all reviewers by reading the first 10 studies as a group and inputting relevant information into the data extraction table. The data extraction table was reviewed such that all authors are in consensus for the data extraction of the remaining studies. This clarified discrepancies and ensured adequate interrater reliability with data extraction [13,27]. Ten studies were piloted for extraction to ensure that relevant information for data analysis and synthesis was captured. After pilot testing was completed, 3 groups of 2 authors (ED, GD, KD, SF, ET, and RC) were involved in data extraction for all full texts included in the review. The 2 reviewers independently assessed each paper into a predefined data extraction table as outlined in Multimedia Appendix 5. Disagreements were resolved first by discussion, followed by a decision by a third reviewer (SQ, SW, and AO) if consensus could not be achieved.

The chosen information to be extracted aligns with the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews [13]. Once data extraction was piloted, the tool was modified to ensure all relevant data were captured. The following information will be extracted from studies that met the inclusion criteria: title, author, year, country of publication, study design, and sample size (total and per group). Participant characteristics to be extracted include age (mean and SD), gender, previous IPE experience, previous degrees conferred, and educational programs. Intervention characteristics to be extracted are the level of study, setting, frequency, and duration for both experimental and control groups as well as the timing of data collection. For all of the primary and secondary outcomes, the following data will be extracted: total and subscale scores of the included outcome measures, baseline score and postintervention scores (mean and SD) in both the experimental and control groups, mean group difference and SD, group P value, effect size, and a summary of the results. If any of the earlier information is missing from the included studies, authors will be contacted to request missing data. If the data are reported only in figures and the authors do not provide the requested data, WebPlotDigitizer will be used if possible.

The Cochrane RoB tool will be used (randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result) for RCTs within this review [28]. For non-RCTs, the RoB in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions will be used [29]. Two authors will independently perform the RoB assessment for each citation, any disagreements will be resolved through discussion. If no consensus can be established, a third reviewer will be consulted (SQ, SW, and AO). For this review, RoB will be performed at a study level.

Prior to assessing the quality of evidence for each outcome, each study will be assessed for inclusion using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework for quality assessment [30]. The quality of evidence will be assessed across the domains of RoB, consistency, directness, precision, and publication bias. The overall quality of outcomes in the studies will be assessed using GRADE, and results will be stratified as high (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), or very low (very uncertain about the estimate of effect) [31]. GRADE will be conducted by 3 pairs of authors in which each pair will be independently performing the GRADE assessment for each citation with any disagreements resolved through discussion. If no consensus can be established, a third reviewer will be consulted.

Tables will be constructed to describe the types of studies, populations, characteristics of the IPE intervention, professions involved in the intervention, comparator, and outcomes. Meta-analysis will be conducted if at least 2 studies reported the same outcome. The standardized mean difference will be the summary measure collected if applicable and measures of consistency will be explored via the I² statistic. If the estimated I² statistic is equal to or greater than 50% this would be interpreted as a large amount of heterogeneity [32]. Furthermore, due to the abundance of variability in IPE research concerning participants, interventions, comparators, and study designs, a random-effects model that inherently allows more heterogeneity will be used. If meta-analysis cannot be performed, the data will be synthesized through a narrative approach.

Subgroup analysis may be conducted if sufficient data are available from two or more studies to examine outcome variability and population affected by the outcome (patient-reported outcomes, clinician outcomes, and student outcomes) or exposure variability (setting, frequency, and duration; including the potential total number of exposure hours and whether hours came from patient-facing vs nonpatient-facing exposure experiences). Potential subgroup analyses may include examining the impact of an IPE intervention between different prelicensure rehabilitation science students. These subgroup analyses, if conducted, might inform the authors and readers further on the aspects of IPE that should be prioritized, and potentially some of the current best methods by which to measure the outcomes of interest from a collaborative and potentially patient experience perspective.