Educational Effects of Collaborative Teaching on Medical Students' Perception of Patient‐Centered Care: A Mixed Methods Study

ABSTRACT

Background

Patient‐centered care (PCC) has attracted attention in healthcare due to its association with improved health‐related quality of life. However, medical students and physicians hold less favorable attitudes toward PCC than other healthcare professionals. This is probably because physicians are the sole educators of medical students and they have limitations in teaching about patient background, an essential element of PCC. This study evaluated the effectiveness of an interprofessional joint lesson on PCC with medical social workers (MSWs) who bridge medical and social aspects of care.

Methods

Using a mixed‐methods design, we implemented an interprofessional collaborative teaching session on PCC for 123 fourth–year medical students co‐facilitated by an MSW and a general practitioner (GP). Qualitative data from semi‐structured interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis to identify codes, categories, and themes. Pre‐ and post‐intervention quantitative data were analyzed using paired t‐tests to evaluate PCC‐related perceptions. This integrated approach assessed the educational impact of the session.

Results

There was a significant pre–post increase in students' ability to explain PCC‐related perceptions. Content analysis revealed 284 codes generated from interviews, which were aggregated into nine categories and four themes: exploring health, disease, and illness experience; understanding the whole person; reaching a common understanding; and enhancing the patient–physician relationship.

Conclusions

Incorporating MSWs into medical education can improve medical students' understanding of PCC. Moreover, this collaborative teaching model is comprehensive and addresses the clinical and social aspects of patient care, providing a holistic healthcare perspective.

1. Introduction

Patient‐centered care (PCC) has attracted significant attention in healthcare because of its positive association with health‐related quality of life and its recognition as a key healthcare outcome parameter [1, 2]. PCC is foundational to many global medical education curricula at both undergraduate and graduate levels [3]. In Japan, PCC has been integrated into the Model Core Curriculum for Medical Education since 2023 [4, 5]. As the population ages and individualized care becomes increasingly important, medical education must prepare students to collaborate effectively with multiple professions to provide integrated and holistic care.

Several systematized models have been utilized in the education and practice of PCC [6]. PCC can be divided into four components (Figure 1). Component 1 explores the disease and the patient's perception of health and illness. In addition to considering the course of the disease based on the patient's history and physical examination, the physician must actively enter the patient's world to understand their perspective of health and unique illness experiences. Component 2 integrates health, disease, and illness concepts into a holistic understanding considering diverse aspects of the patient's life, such as personality, developmental history, life cycle challenges, and various contexts. Component 3 reflects the collaborative process of the patient and physician reaching a common understanding, focusing on three key areas: defining the problem, establishing treatment goals, and identifying the roles of patients and physicians. Component 4 emphasizes using every patient contact to strengthen the patient–physician relationship through compassion, empathy, power‐sharing, healing, and hope. Implementing these techniques requires mindfulness, practical wisdom, and an understanding of the unconscious aspects of the relationship, such as transference and reverse transference. Although PCC is often learned through patient interactions in clinical practice [7, 8], teaching these components, particularly Component 2, in classroom settings remains challenging.

FIGURE 1.

Components of patient‐centered care.

PCC is linked to high patient satisfaction [9], improved outcomes [10], and reduced healthcare costs [11]. However, medical students and physicians hold less favorable attitudes toward it than other healthcare professionals [12]. In Japan, patient‐centered communication is insufficiently prioritized [13, 14]; this could likely be because physicians are the sole educators in the current medical education model. Despite physicians being skilled in teaching medical interviewing and physical examination, they may not consistently use patient‐centered approaches [3] and may have limitations in addressing the broader social determinants of health. Proximal factors in a patient's context include family, economic stability, education, employment, leisure, and social support, whereas distal factors include community, culture, healthcare systems, sociohistorical background, and environmental influences [6]. These factors are crucial for holistic care but are not always emphasized in physician‐led teaching.

Collaborative teaching utilizes the knowledge and expertise of two or more educators to enhance the learning process [15, 16]. This approach has been employed as a pedagogical development strategy across various settings, including healthcare [17]. Previous studies have reported examples of collaborative classroom education for medical students, such as partnerships between physicians from different departments [18], collaborations between physicians and nurses [19], and joint efforts between instructors in clinical and basic medical fields [20]. In some cases, physicians and social‐behavioral scientists have co‐taught, with complementary emphases on biomedical content and patient‐centered processes [21, 22]. To the best of our knowledge, no published reports exist of collaborative teaching involving medical social workers (MSWs) in undergraduate medical education.

We selected MSWs because they uniquely bridge medical and social domains, possess specialized expertise in assessing and addressing patients' backgrounds, and can provide perspectives on social determinants of health that complement the biomedical focus of physicians. MSWs regularly engage in complex discharge planning, community‐based integrated care, and coordination with multidisciplinary teams—skills that directly support Component 2 of PCC. Their inclusion offers medical students first‐hand exposure to the integration of clinical care with social context, which is essential for developing holistic patient‐centered competencies.

This study examined the educational effects of collaborative teaching by MSWs and general practitioners (GPs) on medical students' understanding of PCC. This educational intervention was grounded in the framework of interprofessional education (IPE). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), IPE occurs when “two or more professions learn about, from, and with each other to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes” [23]. IPE is underpinned by adult learning theory and social learning theory, which stress experiential, context‐based learning and reflection as drivers for professional development [24]. In our design, medical students engaged in joint learning sessions facilitated by both an MSW and a GP, enabling them to gain complementary perspectives on patient care. Embedding the intervention in the IPE framework provides a pedagogical rationale for integrating biomedical and social approaches and aligns with evidence from a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review that IPE enhances learners' collaborative skills and preparedness for multidisciplinary practice [25].

The intervention also incorporated scenario‐based learning and peer role play to provide an active, authentic learning experience. By integrating the complementary strengths of MSWs and GPs, our approach addresses a documented gap in PCC education and offers new insights into how IPE can enhance students' ability to integrate clinical and social dimensions of care.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

We used an embedded mixed‐method design incorporating both quantitative and qualitative analyses [26, 27, 28]. Including a qualitative analysis provided a comprehensive understanding of the quantitative results by incorporating participants' perspectives [27, 28]. The National Institute of Health recommends a mixed‐methods approach for research “to improve the quality and scientific power of data” and address the complexity of current issues in health sciences, including health professional education [28]. Quantitative data were collected through pre‐ and post‐intervention questionnaire surveys. Qualitative data were collected through post‐intervention focus group interviews and analyzed following the quantitative analysis [26, 29, 30].

2.2. Participants and Context

This study was conducted at Fukushima Medical University in Japan. The undergraduate medical education in Japan follows a 6‐year curriculum, consisting of preclinical (years 1–4) and clinical (years 5–6) phases [31]. Fourth‐year students complete basic and clinical science coursework, but do not yet begin clinical clerkships; they must pass an integrated examination before advancing to year 5. We recruited 137 fourth‐year medical students, of whom 123 were included in the final analysis. MSWs play an essential role in Japan's community‐based integrated care system, contributing to students' understanding of social determinants of health and collaborative care practices [32]. Within IPE frameworks, MSWs contribute by teaching about social determinants of health and patient backgrounds. However, collaborative teaching involving MSWs and physicians remains rare in Japanese undergraduate medical education, making this approach novel in the national context. Collaborative teaching sessions were conducted by an MSW, who served as a bridge between the hospital and patients with detailed information of patient backgrounds, and a GP on June 1, 2023. The lecture presented a patient with a certain disease and a complex context involving issues in the living environment and family relationships. Physicians conducted role plays of the clinical interview, physical examinations, and differential diagnosis to gather information on Component 1. Additionally, the MSW lectured on Component 2, addressing the background information required for patient care. Only those who passed the examination at the end of their fourth year could begin clinical practice in their fifth year. Therefore, at the time of the study, these students had attended lectures on basic and clinical medicine, but not on clinical practice.

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time, and that participation was voluntary, with no impact on their status. Those interviewed received a 2000‐yen shop card. The study was approved by the relevant ethics committee.

2.3. Educational Framework

This educational intervention was grounded in several complementary learning theories and educational frameworks. Kolb's experiential learning theory emphasizes the cyclical process of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation, which has been widely applied in medical education to enhance reflective and experiential learning [33]. In this study, these elements were incorporated through interactive discussions and reflections on authentic patient cases. Similarly, Mezirow's transformative learning theory provided a foundation for facilitating perspective transformation by encouraging students to critically reflect on assumptions about patient care and social contexts—a process shown to promote deep learning and professional identity formation in health professions education [34]. Bandura's social learning theory also underpinned the design, emphasizing learning through observation, modeling, and collaboration within interprofessional settings; this theory has been recognized as a key framework for understanding social interaction and role modeling in health professions education [35]. These theoretical perspectives guided the design of the collaborative teaching between physicians and MSWs, supporting the development of patient‐centered attitudes and interprofessional competencies consistent with the principles of PCC and IPE.

2.4. Procedure and Intervention

The intervention comprised three sequential phases: a pre‐lecture, case‐based learning with peer role play, and a reflection session. The objectives, content, and instructor roles in each phase are illustrated in Figure 2. File S1 contains the full clinical scenario.

FIGURE 2.

Educational intervention and data collection.

2.4.1. Pre‐Lecture

A joint session delivered by an MSW and a GP introduced students to the community‐based integrated care system and the specific role of MSWs. The MSW provided an overview of their role in community‐based integrated care systems and introduced relevant cases, such as a patient unable to pay for treatment because of financial difficulties. These lectures were crucial as most participants were unfamiliar with MSWs and their roles. It offered medical students a valuable opportunity to learn directly from an MSW about the skills required for community physicians. Additionally, the GP provided an overview of PCC, emphasizing the importance of care sustainability and the dangers of not considering the patient's background [3]. These lectures were designed to achieve two primary learning objectives: (1) to enhance students' awareness of the social determinants of health and (2) to illustrate the importance of interprofessional collaboration in delivering patient‐centered care.

2.4.2. Case‐Based Learning With Peer Role Plays

The case‐based learning session included a peer role play [36, 37], in which two students played the roles of the patient and their family, and the remaining students played the roles of resident physicians [38]. This approach aimed to familiarize students with their role as physicians and provide an authentic learning experience before entering clinical practice. Students were given a clinical scenario that included the patient's background. The students acting as physicians had to consider the questions that resident physicians should ask the patient and their family. The student acting as the patient answered the questions based on the information provided. Subsequently, the students acting as physicians were allowed time to consider appropriate physical examinations and tests, and report their findings. Case‐based learning and peer role play have been shown to improve clinical reasoning, critical thinking, and interprofessional communication in undergraduate medical education [39].

2.4.3. Reflection Session

After the case‐based learning and peer role play, the students attended a reflection session with the MSW and GP. The GP taught them relevant questions and examinations, introduced the examination and test results, and presented differential and confirmed diagnoses. The MSW demonstrated how to obtain information from the community and shared patient details. Subsequently, the students reconsidered the challenges of discharging patients. They wrote reflection papers based on the MSW's teaching about the necessary information required at discharge and the importance of community‐based integrated care systems. The reflection session aimed to consolidate learning through guided reflection, allowing students to connect cognitive understanding with professional identity formation. Post‐intervention focus group interviews were conducted 1 week after the session to provide time for reflection and learning consolidation while minimizing recall bias, consistent with recommendations from educational reflection theories [40].

2.5. Questionnaire and Interview Process

The questionnaire and interview guide were developed based on the four components of PCC and reviewed by three experts in medical education to ensure content validity and consistency between the quantitative and qualitative measures. The questionnaire assessed knowledge and attitudes aligned with the learning objectives, while the interview explored students' reflections and behavioral intentions following the intervention. This approach ensured internal coherence and methodological rigor in evaluating the educational impact.

2.6. Data Collection

2.6.1. Pre‐ and Post‐Intervention Questionnaires

Pre‐ and post‐intervention questionnaires were administered to investigate the educational effects. Responses were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Although the questionnaire was not a previously validated instrument, the items were developed through a focus group discussion with three medical education experts and were conceptually aligned with the four components of PCC and the learning objectives of the study. The timing of data collection was designed to capture both immediate knowledge acquisition and short‐term retention of learning outcomes, consistent with medical education research frameworks that emphasize assessing both immediate and retained learning effects [41, 42]. File S2 provides the complete questionnaire, along with the 5‐point Likert scale format, item development process, and alignment with study objectives.

2.7. Sample Size

This study was conducted alongside the regular curriculum for fourth‐year medical students participating in basic and clinical medicine classes. A total of 123 medical students participated. The required sample size for a paired t‐test, assuming a significance level of 0.05, power of 0.8, and effect size of 0.5, was 52 participants per group, totaling 104. Our final sample exceeded this requirement.

2.8. Data Analysis

The pre‐ and post‐questionnaire responses were compared using a paired t‐test. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 28.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA), with the level of significance set at p < 0.05.

2.8.1. Focus Group Interviews

We conducted three focus group interviews 1 week after the intervention. Of the 12 volunteers, 11 were interviewed; 1 participant could not attend due to illness. Regarding demographic details of the 11 interviewed participants, 7 were women and 4 were men; all were fourth‐year medical students, with an age range of 21–28 years. Three researchers conducted the interviews, which were iterative, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. An open‐ended interview guide was created based on the research question, “What are the educational effects of collaborative teaching on medical students' perception of patient‐centered care?”, and content analysis findings. Participants did not receive compensation for their participation. The semi‐structured interviews lasted an average of 60 min. The following questions guided the interviews:

1. What new concepts did you learn in this class?

2. What did you learn about PCC methods in this class?

3. After this class, do you think that the patient‐centered approach to medicine is important?

4. What did you learn about the patient background (context) in this class?

5. After this class, do you think that understanding the patient background (context) is important?

6. In what ways do you feel that cooperative teaching with MSWs is effective?

7. What are some things that you have been able to do after this class?

Interviews were conducted to identify which aspects of the class promoted understanding of PCC. Question 7, which concerned behavior‐related change, was intended to assess perceived applicability of the learning to practice in the short term. Responses were analyzed using deductive content analysis, which classified the content into categories and subcategories [43, 44]. Two researchers individually coded the transcripts using a template. Their coding was then discussed and agreed upon. Subsequently, three researchers discussed changes and additions to the template until a consensus was reached. After coding, similar codes were grouped into categories and subcategories. This final set of codes was determined upon reaching saturation, when no new information or themes emerged from the data during analysis [44]. Researchers with experience in qualitative research discussed and reviewed the categories and subcategories to ensure the reliability of the findings. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist was used to report the findings [45].

2.8.2. Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Strands

We adopted an embedded mixed‐methods design that incorporated quantitative and qualitative analysis [26, 27, 28]. The integration of both strands followed Creswell and Plano Clark's framework for mixed‐methods research [28]. Integration occurred at three levels: (1) the design level, where qualitative data were embedded within the quantitative strand to enrich the interpretation of outcomes; (2) the analysis level, where qualitative findings were used to elaborate on and explain trends observed in the quantitative data; and (3) the interpretation level, where both data strands were merged in a joint display (Table 1) that linked quantitative items with qualitative themes and the corresponding PCC components. Through integrated assessment, we incorporated qualitative analysis into the results of the quantitative analysis and considered the perspectives of participants, thereby gaining a comprehensive understanding of the quantitative results [27, 28].

TABLE 1.

Joint display.

PCC component	Quantitative item (pre–post change)	Qualitative interview questions (post change)	Interpretation (integration)
Component 1: Exploring health, disease, and the illness experience	Q1, Q3, Q4, Q8	What did you learn about PCC methods in this class?	Students reported learning to elicit patients' narratives and emotions through MSW role modeling
Component 2: Understanding the whole person	Q2, Q5, Q9	What did you learn about the patient background (context) in this class?	Students emphasized the value of MSW input in understanding family and community context
Component 3: Reaching a common understanding	Q6	What new concepts did you learn in this class?	Students recognized the importance of shared decision‐making and interprofessional communication
Component 4: Enhancing the patient–physician relationship	Q7	What are some things that you have been able to do after this class?	Role play helped students realize the link between empathy, teamwork, and sustained trust

Abbreviations: MSW, medical social worker; PCC, patient‐centered care.

3. Results

We further visualized the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings through a joint display (Table 1), which explicitly links changes in quantitative items with the corresponding qualitative themes.

3.1. Participant Characteristics

Of the 137 students who were recruited, 8 did not provide consent, and 6 did not respond to the pre‐ or post‐intervention questionnaires. Thus, the final sample comprised 123 participants (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3.

Flow diagram of study participants.

3.2. Quantitative Outcomes and Measures

The post‐intervention scores were significantly higher than the pre‐intervention scores (Table 2). Significant increases were observed in the ability to explain PCC, understanding the importance of exploring patient experiences with health, disease, and illness, asking about patients' experiences with health, disease, and illness, and gathering information on patients' backgrounds (p < 0.001 for all items).

TABLE 2.

Result regarding students' perceptions of patient‐centered care.

No.	Question	Pre		Post		p	Effect size
		Average	SD	Average	SD
1	Can you describe the methods of patient‐centered care?	3.3	0.9	4.1	0.7	< 0.001	0.859
2	Can you provide an overview of the patient's background (context)?	3.0	0.9	4.1	0.6	< 0.001	0.874
3	How important do you think patient‐centered care methods are in patient care?	4.7	0.6	4.8	0.4	< 0.001	0.518
4	Do you think it is important to explore a patient's experiences with health, disease, and illness in patient care?	4.8	0.5	4.9	0.4	0.007	0.489
5	Do you think understanding the patient's background (context) is important in patient care?	4.7	0.5	4.9	0.4	0.009	0.543
6	Do you think it is important for patients and doctors to reach a common understanding in patient care?	4.7	0.6	4.8	0.5	0.002	0.564
7	Do you think strengthening the patient–physician relationship is important in patient care?	4.7	0.6	4.8	0.6	0.051	0.549
8	Can you ask a patient's experiences with health, disease, and illness?	3.4	1	4.3	0.6	< 0.001	0.893
9	Can you gather information about the patient's background (context) from the patient?	3.3	1	4.3	0.6	< 0.001	0.909

Note: 5‐point Likert scale (where 1 = strongly disagree, and 5 = strongly agree).

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

3.3. Content Analysis

Content analysis of interview responses revealed 284 codes generated from free‐description impressions, which were aggregated into nine subcategories. These subcategories were further classified into four themes (Table 3).

TABLE 3.

Result of content analysis.

Theme	Subcategory	Quote
Component 1: Exploring health, disease, and the illness experience (41)	Understanding and support from MSWs (41)	“MSWs share more in‐depth information so that doctors can treat patients better.” (ID: 8)
Component 2: Understanding the whole person (41)	Understanding the patient context (81)	“Each patient has a different social background; therefore, how they spend time during their treatment process and their ultimate goals are different.” (ID: 7)
	Interprofessional and comprehensive care (31)	“When I become a doctor, I'd like to treat patients with the support of their family, MSWs and various other people.” (ID: 1) “I thought that patient‐centered care could be achieved by working together with various industries.” (ID: 6)
	MSWs' specialized contributions (24)	“The relationship that MSWs have built with their patients can be linked to the physicians who are part of the same team.” (ID: 6)
	Multi‐disciplinary perspective (2)	“I learned that adopting a broad view of healthcare is ideal.” (ID: 2)
Component 3: Reaching a common understanding (62)	Importance of patient‐centered care (51)	“Patient‐centered care could provide high satisfaction, which was related to treatment effectiveness.” (ID: 1)
	Challenges in patient‐centered care (11)	“Accepting situations in which patients' wishes should be respected versus those in which to intervene medically was difficult.” (ID: 5)
Component 4: Enhancing the patient–physician relationship (43)	Role playing and empathy development (27)	“We were able to consider how to deal with real cases by playing the roles of patients and physicians, which provided us an up‐close view of real medical care.” (ID: 8)
	Building trust and contextual knowledge (16)	“We learnt that building trust is crucial in patient‐centered care.” (ID: 5)

Note: () number of codes.

Abbreviation: MSWs, medical social workers.

3.4. Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings

To strengthen interpretive coherence, we integrated quantitative and qualitative findings using a joint display. Each qualitative theme was linked to the corresponding quantitative items and PCC components, illustrating how qualitative insights elaborated on the quantitative trends. For example, the theme “Understanding the patient's background” explained the observed quantitative improvement in students' ability to gather contextual information, while “Reaching a common understanding” supported the increase in communication‐related items. This integration clarified how the collaborative teaching intervention enhanced both cognitive understanding and applied competence within the PCC framework.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to evaluate the educational effects of a collaborative teaching approach involving MSWs and GPs on fourth‐year medical students' understanding of PCC. Using a mixed‐methods design, we observed significant improvements in the participants' knowledge and skills related to PCC, particularly in understanding and incorporating the patient's background into care. Although the numerical pre–post differences appeared modest, this was likely due to ceiling effects, as students had relatively high baseline awareness of PCC concepts [46]. Nevertheless, the significant increases in key items, such as understanding patient context and communication, represent meaningful learning gains. Even small score changes can indicate genuine educational growth, as modest pre–post effects are common in continuing medical education and health professions training when baseline knowledge is already high [47]. These improvements reflect a transition from cognitive understanding of PCC principles to applied competence in articulating and integrating these principles into practice, aligning with Kirkpatrick's Level 2 (Learning) [48, 49]. Moreover, qualitative findings indicated students' intentions to apply these approaches in future clinical settings, suggesting the early emergence of Level 3 (Behavior) outcomes [49]. These results establish that even small quantitative changes can represent substantive educational progress when interpreted within the context of the learning objectives and theoretical framework of the intervention.

These findings can also be interpreted through the educational theories underpinning the intervention design. In line with Kolb's experiential learning theory, students deepened their understanding of PCC through concrete experiences during role plays and reflective observation in post‐session discussions [33]. Mezirow's transformative learning theory further explains how critical reflection on patient narratives and social contexts may have shifted students' perspectives toward a more holistic and socially responsive view of care [50]. In addition, Bandura's social learning theory supports the idea that observing the collaborative behavior of MSWs and GPs facilitated learning through modeling and interaction, reinforcing interprofessional competencies [51]. Integrating these theoretical perspectives provides a coherent explanation for how knowledge was translated into applied understanding and emerging behavioral intentions.

The quantitative analysis revealed that before the intervention, the participants understood the importance of PCC; listening to patients' experiences with health, disease, and illness; understanding patient backgrounds; and reaching a common understanding for building relationships with patients. However, their abilities to explain and practically apply these concepts improved significantly after the intervention. This included explaining PCC concepts, understanding the importance of obtaining patients' experiences with health, disease, and illness, and gathering contextual information about patients. These findings are consistent with the literature suggesting that integrated PCC education enhances medical students' competencies in these areas [3, 7].

The qualitative analysis demonstrated the value of the collaborative teaching approach. The themes identified through content analysis aligned with the components of PCC and highlighted its multifaceted nature. The most frequently mentioned subcategory was understanding the patient context.

As a mixed methods research study, the qualitative analysis explored the reasons behind the significant increases observed in the quantitative analysis. In the qualitative analysis, the themes extracted reflected key components of PCC, such as understanding the patient's background, building a shared understanding, and strengthening the patient–physician relationship. In the quantitative analysis, these themes provided insights into why students demonstrated an improved ability to describe PCC methods after the intervention.

The quantitative analysis demonstrated that the heightened ability to question about the patient's experience with health, disease, and illness was associated with Component 1. During the collaborative class, the participants received direct lectures from MSWs, where they learned about the MSWs' roles and methods of integrating patient‐specific health meanings, aspirations, and experiences into care. The comprehensive and specific content shared by MSWs during role plays included detailed insights into patients' aspirations, experiences with their illness, interpretations of their condition, expectations for care, emotional responses, and the social impact of their health. These aspects were highlighted as critical considerations for effective discharge planning, as they provided a holistic understanding of the patient's needs and circumstances [52]. This perspective, which physicians alone may be unable to convey, enabled participants to learn specific questions to ask patients and methods of applying them in practice. The understanding of patient background was extracted as a theme in the qualitative analysis and the reason for the improvement in practical application ability, which was particularly evident in the quantitative analysis.

Component 2 was the most frequently mentioned theme in the qualitative analysis. This was likely related to the improved ability to explain the patient's background and gather contextual information from the quantitative analysis. In the class, the role‐play scenarios involved complex cases, such as discharging an older person living alone from a hospital to their home [53]. The necessary information for discharging the patient included understanding the patient's familial relationships and social support from neighbors, both in proximal and distal contexts, like community and culture. The experience of gathering such information through the community‐based integrated care system, as demonstrated by MSWs during role plays, was enlightening for the participants [54]. They learned which background information was essential in patient care and how to collaborate with various professionals to gather it, likely contributing to the observed increases in the qualitative analysis. Linking the qualitative findings with the quantitative results revealed that the alignment between the educational content and these PCC components contributed to the post‐intervention increase in understanding.

Although the current study primarily demonstrated improvements in knowledge, understanding, and self‐reported skills (Kirkpatrick Level 2), several interview comments suggested that participants expressed an intention to apply these approaches in future clinical practice [55]. One student noted, “When I become a doctor, I'd like to treat patients with the support of their family, MSWs, and various other people,” which suggests a developing awareness and motivation that may precede behavioral change (Level 3). These qualitative insights suggest that our intervention may serve as a preparatory step for higher‐level outcomes, which should be confirmed through longitudinal follow‐up during clinical clerkships and into early practice.

Our findings align with the principles of IPE, demonstrating that collaborative teaching by professionals from distinct domains can enhance learners' understanding of both clinical and social dimensions of care. According to the WHO IPE framework, such learning experiences are expected to promote collaborative practice competencies, which are essential for delivering patient‐centered care in multidisciplinary settings. By engaging students in learning “about, from, and with” both MSWs and GPs, the intervention provided opportunities for role clarification, mutual respect, and integration of diverse expertise—core competencies in IPE.

4.1. Exploring Health, Disease, and the Illness Experience

This theme emphasized the importance of understanding patients' experiences from multiple perspectives. MSW involvement was particularly valued due to their ability to provide in‐depth information regarding patients' social contexts, which is crucial for holistic care. This finding supports the integration of non‐medical professionals into medical education to enrich students' perspectives on patient care [56].

4.2. Understanding the Whole Person

The participants reported a better understanding of the broader context of the patients' lives, including social, economic, and familial factors. This comprehensive view is essential for developing effective and personalized treatment plans. Integrating MSWs into the teaching process was pivotal in achieving this understanding, as they brought a unique, non‐clinical perspective to the discussion [57].

4.3. Reaching a Common Understanding

The importance of collaboration and mutual understanding between patients and healthcare providers was highlighted. The participants recognized the benefits of PCC in achieving high satisfaction and positive treatment outcomes [58]. This underscores the need for educational programs that foster communication skills and shared decision‐making. In this intervention, post‐role‐play lectures by physicians and MSWs elucidated the process of mutual decision‐making, considering patients' values, aspirations, disease experiences, and background information to define the challenges and goals for health promotion and preventive measures. This strategy enabled the participants to understand the importance of PCC and highlighted the challenges involved.

4.4. Enhancing the Patient–Physician Relationship

Role playing and empathy development were significant aspects of this theme. The participants learned the importance of building trust and understanding patient backgrounds, which are critical for effective PCC. This finding aligns with previous research indicating that experiential learning methods, such as role playing, are effective in teaching empathy and relational skills [37, 43]. During the collaborative role play, the participants experienced the challenges of communication and empathy, learning how to build trust while incorporating information from Components 1 and 2. The necessity of multidisciplinary roles and collaboration for achieving PCC was emphasized, reflecting the importance of teamwork in building patient trust.

From an educational perspective, the combination of experiential, transformative, and social learning processes embedded in this intervention may have facilitated deep learning beyond mere knowledge acquisition. The integration of these theories supports the educational mechanisms through which interprofessional collaboration and patient‐centered attitudes were enhanced.

4.5. Educational Implications

The findings of this study suggest that incorporating MSWs into medical education could significantly enhance students' understanding of PCC. This collaborative teaching model, as demonstrated in our study, provides a comprehensive learning experience by addressing both the clinical and social aspects of patient care [59]. Given the aging global population and the increasing need for individualized care, particularly acute issues in Japanese healthcare, adopting educational approaches that prepare medical students to collaborate with various healthcare professionals is essential.

4.6. Limitations

This study had some limitations. First, it lacked a control group. Without a control group, it is unclear whether the observed improvements in students' understanding of PCC were due to the specific collaborative teaching intervention or merely the result of exposure to any educational activity. Including a control group would have allowed us to compare the intervention effects against a baseline or alternative method, providing stronger evidence for the effectiveness of this approach. Second, this study was conducted on medical students from a single institution in Japan. The community‐based integrated care system and healthcare culture in Japan may differ from those in other countries, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings to healthcare systems or educational contexts in other regions or cultures. Third, the evaluation was conducted only before and after the intervention. Future research should consider longitudinal studies to assess the long‐term impact of educational interventions on clinical practice. Fourth, this study relied on self‐reported measures, which could be subject to bias. Moreover, the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were not verified. Fifth, this study focused on medical students, and the effectiveness of collaborative teaching may vary when applied to other healthcare professionals. Investigating the impact of such educational methods on patient outcomes could further validate the importance of integrated PCC education in medical training. Finally, based on Kirkpatrick's model of training evaluation, this study primarily assessed outcomes at Level 2 (Learning), which encompass changes in knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Behavioral changes in clinical practice (Level 3) and patient‐related outcomes (Level 4) were not directly examined. Future research should incorporate longitudinal follow‐up during clinical clerkships or early postgraduate training to determine whether the learning gained from this intervention translates into sustained behavioral change and enhanced interprofessional practice. Such efforts would deepen understanding of how experiential and transformative learning processes foster professional development and patient‐centered behavior.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the significant educational benefits of a collaborative teaching approach involving MSWs and GPs in teaching PCC to medical students. The integration of diverse professional perspectives enhances students' understanding of the holistic nature of patient care and prepares them for collaborative practice in their future careers. This study demonstrated marked improvements in students' abilities to integrate and apply PCC principles, particularly in understanding and addressing the complexities of patient backgrounds in their care strategies. As medical education continues to evolve, incorporating such innovative teaching methods is crucial for fostering a new generation of healthcare professionals equipped to provide compassionate, comprehensive, and patient‐centered care. These findings suggest that a multidisciplinary approach enriches medical training, underscoring the need for future curricula to consistently integrate various healthcare perspectives to enhance patient outcomes.

Author Contributions

M.E., K.S., F.H., M.S., S.K., Y.T., and K.N. planned, designed, and conceived the study. M.E. and K.S. drafted the manuscript. M.E., Y.T., K.N., and S.K. recruited the participants. M.E., K.S., F.H., M.S., S.K., Y.T., and K.N. piloted the survey, interpreted the data, and revised the manuscript. Y.T., K.N., and S.K. acted as interviewers for the interview survey. M.E. and K.S. performed statistical analyses. All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by a Grant‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research provided by KAKENHI (grant number 23K01875).

Disclosure

The authors did not use any AI‐generated content (AIGC) tools based on large language models (LLMs) in the development of any part of this manuscript.

Ethics Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of Fukushima Medical University (approval number REC2030‐040).

Consent

All participants provided written informed consent before participation. Although the researcher was a teacher in the class, the participants were assured that participation in this study would not affect their grade evaluations. Participation was voluntary and participants were free to withdraw at any time. Eleven participants were interviewed and received a gift card worth 3000 yen in return.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

File S1: Pre−/post‐intervention questionnaire items.

File S2: Outline of the case‐based learning and peer role‐play flow.

Endo M., Shikino K., Stanyon M., et al., “Educational Effects of Collaborative Teaching on Medical Students' Perception of Patient‐Centered Care: A Mixed Methods Study,” Journal of General and Family Medicine 27, no. 2 (2026): e70104, 10.1002/jgf2.70104.

Data Availability Statement

The raw dataset supporting the conclusions of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.