{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020594521080240916, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003497182824946571, 'mean_word_length': 5.800528401585205, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Instrument development, diverse evaluation, and furthering interprofessional research globally

Contributions to this issue respond directly to the continuing and widely identified (Brandt, Lutfiyya, King, & Chioreso, 2014; Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2015; Parker, Burrows, Nash, & Rosenblum, 2011) need to measure, evaluate and validate interprofessional approaches, educational material and social context in both concert and isolation. Instrument development is a key means of achieving this and featured articles report on and evaluate a diverse range of interventions. Alongside this, the fundamental and encouraging international focus of interprofessional research is reflected here as studies from 11 different countries throughout Europe, North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Australasia are included. Whilst there have been empirical weaknesses identified in previous IPE evaluation work (Reeves, Boet, Zierler, & Kitto, 2015), the depth, diversity, and reach of the studies in this issue provide important insight across method and context. Iverson and colleagues explore interprofessional student team competence and address the reported difficulty in incorporating IPE opportunities into academic settings through the use of The Creighton-Interprofessional Collaborative Evaluation (C-ICE) instrument. Hendricks et al. have responded to this with their study of an academic-practice partnership. Using action research methods, they have suggested that the structured implementation of interprofessional collaborative practice environments (IPCPs) effectively bridges the previously identified gap between academic and practice contexts. This is then complemented by work from Shirazi et al. who have also covered the development of a theory-based assessment instrument. Measuring readiness to change for interprofessional collaboration in an Iranian context, this study evaluates a widely used technique in a setting in which interprofessional collaboration, and aspects of teamwork more broadly have not been practically integrated. This sees potential benefits for both Iranian healthcare research and the interprofessional discipline as a whole, as exploration in a novel context such as this provides key transferable insight. Evaluations of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) have also been covered via a short report from Kerry et al., and an exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses from Yu and colleagues. The latter called for further and more robust psychometric testing of the RIPLS, offering an important critique of the tool. In addition to these studies, this issue also features a timely systematic review from Welsch et al. which explores the literature on the didactic portion of TeamSTEPPS®, an educational tool designed to improve teamwork and communication in healthcare settings. The literature reveals the positive influence of the utilisation of TeamSTEPPS®, but also described considerable variation in the associated program designs, making general conclusions and more in-depth evaluations difficult. Educational intervention for enhanced interprofessional collaboration comprises an area of research which has and continues to evolve throughout, local, national, and international settings. This issue reflects this and includes a range of studies which progress educational knowledge and provide key pedagogical analysis. Carderelli et al. offer valuable implications for chronic care practitioners as they assess perceptions before and after participation in continuing IPE. Interdisciplinary team training was also explored, as Giuliante and colleagues undertook a feasibility study of a geriatric team training initiative. Whilst there were no reported quantitative changes in attitude, participants’ perspectives were again said to have improved after the intervention, not only suggesting that the TeamSTEPPS® approach is an effective one, but also reinforcing the value of qualitative inquiry. The need for successful and effective interprofessional education, and appropriate evaluation of such is further reinforced by the range of clinical contexts and areas of investigation. IPE in rural practice has been explored by Osborne et al., an interesting insight into the learning experiences of course facilitators in Early Childhood Education came from Attrill et al. and an Interprofessional international service learning experience was qualitatively assessed by Noonan and colleagues. Work such as this, which not only evaluates the educational approach, but also the clinical environment, national context and conditions for collaboration will be central to the continuity of interprofessional research which combines practice and theory in a way which utilizes an increasing empirical archive. The value of engaging with in-depth qualitative data has been evidenced by Ziman et al. who question the use of Surgical Safety Checklists in operating rooms. By undertaking an ethnography of safety cultures in a Canadian operating room it has become clear that the complexity of professional cultures is unlikely to be fully accounted for by adopting