A nationwide survey of 102 Doctor of Physical Therapy programs in the United States reveals that while most institutions have integrated interprofessional education into their curricula, significant heterogeneity remains in how these activities are implemented, supported, and assessed. Published in the Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy, the study provides a detailed baseline of the current state of interprofessional education in physical therapist training, highlighting both the widespread adoption of core competencies and the persistent logistical and financial barriers that hinder consistent execution. The research, led by Yasser Salem and colleagues, addresses a gap in the literature regarding the actual implementation of these educational standards following their designation as accreditation requirements.
The study was conducted to describe the role of interprofessional education in physical therapist professional education curricula, including faculty participation, institutional support, funding, and the specific challenges faced by programs. In the United States, the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education mandated in 2018 that both didactic and clinical curricula include interprofessional education and learning activities directed toward the development of interprofessional competencies. Despite this mandate, previous data on how these standards were actually met across the country were limited, prompting the researchers to conduct this descriptive survey.
The survey was developed by a consensus-based process involving academicians and clinicians with experience in interprofessional education, in consultation with experts and the Board of Directors of the National Interprofessional Education Consortium. The final instrument consisted of 47 questions, covering program demographics, the extent of interprofessional education activities in both didactic and clinical settings, and the resources available to support these initiatives. The electronic survey was distributed in the spring of 2021 by the American Council of Academic Physical Therapy to its members, who represent approximately 95% of all accredited physical therapy educational institutions in the United States. Out of 257 accredited programs that received the survey, 102 completed it, yielding a response rate of 40%.
Respondents represented programs from 36 states, including public, private, for-profit, and non-profit institutions of varying sizes. The majority of programs reported participating in interprofessional education for more than five years, with the duration of participation ranging from one to 30 years. Ninety-eight percent of respondents indicated that students participated in at least one interprofessional education activity in the didactic portion of the curriculum, while 82% reported at least one activity in the clinical education portion. The vast majority of programs, specifically 88%, devoted at least five hours to interprofessional education activities in the didactic curriculum, whereas most programs dedicated no more than five hours to such activities in clinical education.
The survey found that the vast majority of U.S. programs addressed the four core competencies defined by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative, with ranges of 86% to 100% across the competencies in both didactic and clinical education. Nursing, occupational therapy, and medical students were the most frequently involved health professions, with 83%, 74%, and 60% of programs, respectively, reporting their involvement. Respondents also identified 29 different healthcare professions involved in interprofessional education alongside physical therapy. Common activities included case-based scenarios, simulated role-play, and group discussions, with most programs emphasizing how interprofessional collaboration can improve patient care quality, reduce costs, and increase safety.
Management of interprofessional education activities was primarily handled by full-time core physical therapy faculty, with approximately 90% of respondents indicating that such faculty members were responsible for creating or coordinating these activities. At the institutional level, 51% of programs reported that interprofessional education was coordinated by physical therapy faculty, while 30% reported coordination through a collaboration between physical therapy and a central office. Only one-third of respondents indicated that their institutions had a central interprofessional education office. Faculty participation varied, with 42% of programs reporting that 25% to 50% of faculty participated in interprofessional education activities, and 28% reporting less than 25% participation.
Support for interprofessional education activities varied significantly across programs. The most common form of support was faculty training, reported by 36% of programs at the program level and 43% at the institutional level. However, only 29% of respondents reported receiving specific funding for interprofessional education activities. When funding was available, sources included institutional support, departmental budgets, and external grants. Fewer than 10% of respondents reported having a designated budget line for interprofessional education. Additionally, only 40% of respondents indicated that full-time core faculty received workload units for their participation in these activities, suggesting that institutional recognition of this work remains inconsistent.
The top challenges to integrating interprofessional education into the didactic curriculum were faculty time and workload, cited by 77% of respondents, followed by lack of student time and lack of financial support. In clinical education, the most frequently reported challenges were clinical instructors’ time and workload, clinical instructors’ training on interprofessional education, and the time and workload for clinical faculty or the Director of Clinical Education. Narrative responses also identified scheduling, logistics, and space as significant barriers. These findings align with previous literature that has highlighted resource constraints and the need for strategic investment in faculty development and curriculum infrastructure.
The study acknowledges several limitations, including the voluntary nature of the survey and the 40% response rate, which introduces a potential for self-selection bias where programs more engaged in interprofessional education may be more likely to respond. All data were self-reported, meaning there may be inherent flaws in the interpretation of questions or the inability to verify reported data. Furthermore, the study focused exclusively on U.S. physical therapist education programs, so the findings may not be generalizable to other health professions or international contexts. The reliance on unverified self-reports and the likely underreporting of informal interprofessional interactions in clinical settings also limit the comprehensiveness of the data.
Despite these limitations, the authors argue that the results provide an important baseline for describing interprofessional education within U.S. entry-level physical therapist education programs. The findings suggest that while the majority of programs meet accreditation standards and address core competencies, there is a need for more detailed expectations and strategic plans for implementing interprofessional education in both didactic and clinical curricula. The study underscores the importance of institutional support, including funding, workload recognition, and standardized assessment processes, to sustain effective interprofessional education programs. Future research is recommended to identify the specific resources needed for implementation and to evaluate the effectiveness of various integration approaches over time.
The survey instrument was piloted with six experts in interprofessional education and physical therapy who served on the National Interprofessional Education Consortium board, ensuring the final 47-question tool reflected practical realities before distribution. This methodological approach allowed the researchers to capture descriptive data on implementation rather than experimental outcomes, focusing on how programs currently structure their curricula.
Assessment practices for interprofessional education varied widely, with 83% of respondents indicating that student learning was evaluated, while 17% reported no formal assessment. Among those who assessed learning, surveys were the most commonly used tool, followed by reflections, discussion boards, quizzes, and exit interviews. The lack of a standardized assessment approach across programs suggests that evaluation methods are still evolving, with many institutions relying on central offices or individual faculty instructors to tally results. This variability in assessment mechanisms complicates the ability to compare program effectiveness or determine which specific instructional strategies yield the best interprofessional competencies among graduates.
The content of interprofessional education activities frequently centered on professional roles and the potential impact of collaboration on healthcare quality, cost reduction, and patient safety. While case-based scenarios and simulated role-play were the most common delivery methods in didactic settings, clinical education often involved students working with professionals from other disciplines during routine rotations. However, fewer than one-third of respondents reported that clinical interprofessional education was formally integrated into syllabi with specific learning objectives and assessment criteria. In many cases, interprofessional interactions in clinical settings were left to the discretion of clinical instructors and sites, leading to inconsistent exposure for students. This gap between formal curricular integration and informal clinical exposure highlights a significant area for potential curricular development.
The study’s findings align with previous research, such as the 2017 national survey by Stockert and Ohtake, which found that while many programs incorporated interprofessional education, the use of immersive simulation was still emerging. Similarly, a 2019 study by Correa et al. in Brazil found that physical therapy programs reported fewer structured interprofessional education activities than medical programs, citing similar barriers such as insufficient faculty training and logistical challenges. These international and historical comparisons suggest that the challenges identified in this U.S. survey are not unique to the American context but are part of a broader global pattern in physical therapy education. The consistency of these barriers across different countries and time periods underscores the persistent difficulty of integrating interprofessional education into established curricula.
Future research directions outlined by the authors emphasize the need for high-quality quantitative and qualitative studies to identify the specific resources required for effective implementation. Longitudinal studies examining the impact of interprofessional education on clinical practice and student perceptions are warranted to move beyond descriptive baselines. Comparative studies across different health professions and countries could provide additional insights into best practices for curriculum design. The authors also suggest that future investigations should focus on measuring interprofessional education learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills, and behavior over time, as well as evaluating the long-term effects on patient care.
Subject of Research: Implementation and barriers of interprofessional education in U.S. Doctor of Physical Therapy programs
Article Title: Interprofessional education in physical therapist education in the United States
Article References: Salem, Y., Babin, C., Quiben, M., & States, R. A. (2026). Interprofessional education in physical therapist education in the United States. Bulletin of Faculty of Physical Therapy, 31(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43161-026-00345-y
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1186/s43161-026-00345-y
Keywords: interprofessional education, physical therapy, healthcare education, accreditation standards, clinical training, faculty workload, curriculum development, U.S. higher education, Interprofessional, education, physical, therapist
News Source: Courtney Benton. (November 9, 2026). Survey Maps Interprofessional Education in US Physical Therapy. Scienmag.
