




































Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

A Pilot Project Exploring Low-tech Collaborative Board

Gaming on Student Attitudes Toward Interprofessional

Education

Rachel Keiko Stark, MS, AHIPa, Eugenia Opuda, MLS, MEdb,

aHealth Sciences Librarian, University Library, California State University Sacramento,
Sacramento, California, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7946-2213 , stark@csus.edu

bAssistant Professor, Health and Human Services Librarian, Dimond Library,
University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire,

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1410-6546 , eugenia.opuda@unh.edu

Objectives: Exploring the impact of a small, collaborative gaming experience among
undergraduate students on student attitudes and beliefs about Interprofessional
Education (IPE).

Methods: Health sciences librarians at two state universities used a low-tech,
collaborative board game to facilitate small, in-person group gaming. The authors used
an adapted version of the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale (IPAS), a validated
instrument that measures the four domains of the 2011 IPEC Core Competencies for
Interprofessional Collaborative Practice, as a pre-/post-assessment of the impact of the
gaming experience.

Results: While anecdotal evidence indicated that playing a collaborative board game
had an impact on the participating students, there was no statistical evidence that
collaborative board games increase positive or negative attitudes about IPE and
interprofessional collaborative practice.

Conclusions: More student participation is required for statistical significance.
Recruiting students and ensuring that students have enough time to complete the game
play is key to possible future success.

Introduction

Interprofessional Education in Health Sciences Curriculum
Interprofessional education (IPE) is a growing trend among health sciences curriculums
that integrates students from multiple disciplines into teams for collaborative problem
solving. The World Health Organization1 reports that IPE builds collaborative skills
and knowledge for future practitioners to tackle global health challenges in order to
improve health outcomes around the world. An effective IPE curriculum may also
impact students by increasing positive attitudes2, and lead to an increase in
collaborative behavior and patient satisfaction3. Understanding each individual’s
professional role and expertise and developing respect and trust through clear
communication are critical to effective IPE4.

Elements that contribute to effective IPE include maintaining open dialogue, shifting

1

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7946-2213
https://orcid.org/
mailto:stark@csus.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1410-6546
https://orcid.org/
mailto:eugenia.opuda@unh.edu


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

from an egocentric to a collaborative mind-set, developing mutual trust, and
establishing mutual goals, all of which contribute to higher levels of team satisfaction4.
However, a systematic review5 identified a list of barriers to implementing IPE
including stereotyping among faculty and students involved in the IPE program and
varying characteristics of students from different backgrounds. The authors note that
hierarchies exist among health sciences professionals, with faculty members and
students in medicine typically at the top. These hierarchies enable faculty behaviors to
be guided by certain attitudes. Students tend to mimic and adopt those faculty
attitudes, thus making collaborative learning and establishing mutual respect
challenging5. Positive attitudes, on the other hand, are valuable for facilitating an
effective IPE curriculum5,6 through open-mindedness and enthusiasm for participation.
Sunguya et al.5 further suggest benefits to preparing IPE students in advance with the
acknowledgement that participating students and faculty have different learning needs
and approaches to care. Additionally, faculty involvement in IPE may also contribute
to the success or failure of IPE programs. Sunguya et al.5 state that faculty level of
preparedness, attitudes and biases, and ability to manage a class impact a student’s
experience of the IPE curriculum. Giordano, Umland, and Lyons6 and Gary, Gosselin,
and Bentley7 note the importance of positive faculty engagement and support for
students to the success of the IPE curriculum.

Games as a tool for collaborative learning
A systematic review investigating the use of escape rooms in education noted that the
game strengthened relationships by creating a sense of belonging among the players,
improving creative problem-solving skills, fostering collaborative leadership behaviors,
and motivation8. Similarly, another study9 noted the positive impact of an escape
room-type game in increasing IPE behavior and communication among students.
However, Fotaris and Mastoras8 note that creating an escape room activity is
time-consuming and may be limited due to lack of time commitment and limited
resources.

Board games, on the other hand, have been used to increase empathy and collaborative
attitudes10-12, and enhance learning and knowledge12,13. Using a preexisting board
game reduces the time commitment needed to design a game from scratch and is
relatively inexpensive and accessible in comparison to escape rooms. The tactile aspect
of board gaming and other low-tech gaming options can encourage collaborative
student engagement and learning in library settings14,15. Modern tabletop games also
have systems of rules that help students learn about their own abilities with no fear of
embarrassment, and students can transfer important skills learned during the gaming
period to their academic experience16,17. Libraries are offering more opportunities for
gaming with their users, and more librarians are offering games as a means of engaging
and teaching important skills to their users.

Research question
This research aimed to explore the use of collaborative, low-tech board gaming on
student attitudes and beliefs about Interprofessional Education using an adapted
version of the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale (IPAS), a validated scale created by
Norris et al.18. The IPAS was selected as a pre- /post-measurement for this research
study. Validation results for the IPAS indicate that the scale has good factor structure

2



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

and internal consistency18. The IPAS was used with permission from Norris et al., and
modified, with permission, to better represent the degrees and programs available at
the universities in this study. The IPAS measures the four domains of the 2011 IPEC
Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice19 including the Values
and Ethics for Interprofessional Practice, Roles and Responsibilities, Interprofessional
Communication, and Team and Teamwork. What was particularly attractive to the
authors about the IPAS was that the tool measured, among other things, individual
students’ agreement with statements about teamwork roles and responsibilities, which
aligned with the authors’ interest in collaboration amongst students. The IPAS uses
Likert scale questions to record students’ agreement with statements regarding
teamwork roles and responsibilities, patient-centered care, unprofessional biases,
diversity and ethics, and community-centeredness.

By utilizing IPAS, the authors attempted to determine if playing a collaborative board
game, that puts players into various assigned public health professional roles to prevent
a worldwide pandemic, increases positive self-reported student attitudes and beliefs
about interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative practice.
Giordano, Umland, and Lyons6 and Gary, Gosselin, and Bentley7 recommend an initial
assessment of attitudes towards IPE for developing an effective curriculum and call for
a reevaluation of those attitudes throughout the program. IPE requires students to
work together while respecting the individual roles, skills, and experiences of each
student. The authors have experience with IPE in nonclinical settings and intended to
leverage that experience to explore if a collaborative board game encourages the
practical requirements of IPE, such as working together while respecting individual
roles, skills, and the experiences of the participating students. The author at
Sacramento State University has been part of a faculty learning community focused on
IPE and runs an IPE book club with a nonlibrary faculty member focused on aging.
The IPE book club offers an IPE certificate for participation through the
Interprofessional Education Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. The IPE
program at University of New Hampshire is a small, but growing initiative. The author
at University of New Hampshire works with students and faculty who are involved in
the support and participation in the IPE program. With these experiences and with
the authors’ experiences playing the board game, it was possible for the game to serve
as an option for students who might not have a chance to participate in IPE
opportunities otherwise.

Methods

Background and Settings
Participants were recruited from two large state universities, one on the West Coast
and one on the East Coast: Sacramento State University in California and the
University of New Hampshire in New Hampshire. Sacramento State University is
located in a large urban area and is a majority commuter campus with approximately
28,000 students at the time this research was conducted. It offers undergraduate and
graduate degrees in various allied health disciplines, including but not limited to
Nursing (undergraduate and graduate degrees), Physical Therapy (graduate degree),
Communication Sciences Disorders (undergraduate and graduate degrees), and
Gerontology (undergraduate and graduate certificates). Sacramento State University is

3



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

a Hispanic-Serving Institution and an Asian-American, and Native American Pacific
Islander-Serving Institution. The University of New Hampshire is a rural campus and
the flagship institution of the state of New Hampshire. The University of New
Hampshire campus had approximately 12,000 students at the time this research was
conducted, offered undergraduate and graduate degrees in various allied health
disciplines, including but not limited to Nursing, Communication Sciences and
Disorders, Occupational Therapy, and Health Management and Policy.

Background
The study was active from January 2018 - April 2019. The authors initially intended to
recruit student participants who were involved in Interprofessional Education
curriculums, but due to very limited enrollment, broadened the study to include
students in the College of Health and Human Services, and eventually to any student
enrolled at Sacramento State University. Pre- and post-assessment IPAS surveys were
printed out for students for each session and provided before and after game play. A
total of ten students participated in the study and completed the pre- and
post-assessments. The authors held a total of six in-person gaming sessions in which
participants played a collaborative board game titled, Pandemic. At Sacramento State
University only three sessions had students: one large group of seven students, and two
small groups. In the large group, only six students completed the IPAS and played the
entire time. One small group had three students, but only two completed the IPAS and
the other small group had two students, but only a single student completed the IPAS
and was interested in playing the game. At University of New Hampshire, only one
session had one student who completed the IPAS.

Pandemic was chosen because it is a collaborative board game with a health sciences
emphasis. In the game, each participant is assigned a specific role based on real-life
health sciences professions and disciplines, and the players must work cooperatively
with other players to eradicate and treat four different diseases before any one of the
diseases becomes a pandemic. Players randomly select a role card, which describes
what the player can do in addition to the normal parts of play in the game. Each role
has a different special function, and some roles are more helpful for different strategies
than others. For example, when playing as the Dispatcher, you can move players
around the board easier and faster than players moving on their own, or, when playing
as the Researcher, you can give your research (cards that players must collect in a
matched set to start eradicating a specific disease) to other players or move research
from player to player. While these roles are very simplified, they offer insight into the
various roles that people occupy in a real health care team. Each session consisted of
one to six study participants and lasted approximately 30 to 90 minutes. The authors
booked private library spaces to hold the study, with the understanding that the
library is space that is shared by all of the various departments and no single program
or discipline has a claim on the space used. In some instances, the authors participated
in the game play, particularly when there was only one study participant. However, the
author at Sacramento State University participated with group game play when
requested to do so by the students and served as a moderator when requested with the
larger group of students. A moderator is someone who doesn’t need to play the game,
but can read the rules to the participants, particularly when the game play stalls due
to different interpretations of the rules. The authors did not have a formal

4



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

measurement that recorded whether students had previously played the game.

IRB
This research study was submitted to and approved by the Institutional Review Board
at Sacramento State University on January 24, 2018, IRB-17-18-105, and a
collaborative research agreement was signed between the institutions.

Marketing
To encourage students to participate in the research project, fliers were created using
the Piktochart web tool and distributed at both campuses. At Sacramento State
University, fliers and information were sent to faculty members in the health sciences
programs, as well as distributed to the Interprofessional Education student organization
and the Gaming Club for students. Similarly, at University of New Hampshire, fliers
were shared with faculty members in the health sciences programs to email to students,
presented at the end of library instruction sessions, and physically displayed in
bulletins. Students were offered snacks as part of the experience, which were provided
by the researcher from Sacramento State University, and pizza provided by the
researcher at University of New Hampshire.

Results

A total of ten students from both institutions completed both the pre- and post-IPAS
assessments. Most students had science or health sciences backgrounds but did not
have previous experience with IPE. Student majors included Biology, Chemistry,
Engineering, Recreation Therapy, and Gerontology. Only two students who completed
pre- /post-IPAS assessments indicated previous experience with IPE, but that previous
experience did not seem to have a strong impact on their scores on the IPAS. Each
participant was asked to fill out hard copy pre- and post-IPAS assessments and one
author documented the de-identified data into an institutional Qualtrics survey
software. The 26th version of the SPSS statistical software was used to run multiple
ANOVA and t-tests. Findings are presented below in Table 1 and Table 2.

5



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

Table 1. Paired Sample Statistics

Pair Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Teamwork Pre 53.40 4.169 1.318
Teamwork Post 54.20 4.709 1.489
Patient-Centered
Pre

33.70 1.829 .578

Patient-Centered
Post

34.30 .949 .300

Biases Pre 13.60 1.838 .581
Biases Post 15.40 3.406 1.077
Diversity Ethics
Pre

27.10 1.287 .407

Diversity Ethics
Post

26.90 1.912 .605

Community Pre 38.30 2.627 .831
Community Post 39.20 3.425 1.083
Additional Pre 80.10 6.045 1.912
Additional Post 84.00 7.196 2.275
All Pre 246.20 9.773 3.090
All Post 254.00 9.262 2.929

Table 2. Paired Samples Test

Mean Std.
Devi-
ation

Std.
Error
Mean

95%
CI
Lower

95%
CI
Upper

t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)

Team-
work

-.800 5.750 1.818 -4.914 3.314 -.440 9 .670

Patient-
Center-
edness

-.600 1.897 .600 -1.957 .757 -1.000 9 .343

Biases -1.800 4.662 1.474 -5.135 1.535 -1.221 9 .253
Diver-
sity
and
Ethics

.200 2.150 .680 -1.338 1.738 .294 9 .775

Comm-
unity

-.900 2.998 .948 -3.045 1.245 -.949 9 .367

Addi-
tional

-3.900 7.965 2.519 -9.597 1.797 -1.548 9 .156

All -7.800 10.064 3.183 -15.000 -.600 -2.451 9 .037

Results from the pre- and post-IPAS assessments suggest that playing a collaborative
board game had a modest impact on student attitudes towards Interprofessional
Education. For all items of the IPAS, with the exception of the Diversity and Ethics
item, post-assessments had slightly higher scores in comparison to pre-assessments. It
is difficult to interpret what these modest shifts in pre- and post-assessment scores

6



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

might mean without examining each item’s subscale. For example, the Teamwork,
Roles, and Responsibilities subscale includes disparate items such as “Shared learning
will help me think positively about other professionals,” “Patients would ultimately
benefit if health sciences students worked together to solve patient problems,” as well
as “It is not necessary for health sciences students to learn together.” Thus, without
examining each subscale, a higher post-assessment score would not necessarily suggest
an overall more positive attitude toward teamwork. Subscale analysis for the data is
not included in this work due to the small sample size. For the subscales to be useful in
understanding the effects of the intervention, a larger sample size is needed.

For Interprofessional Biases, subscale items include “Health professionals/students from
other disciplines have prejudices or make assumptions about me because of the
discipline I am studying,” “I have prejudices or make assumptions about health
professionals/students from other disciplines,” and “Prejudices and assumptions about
health professionals from other disciplines get in the way of delivery of health care.”
Similarly, this item is challenging to decipher without examining each subscale item.
Though study participants scored higher in the post-assessment, some students only
interacted with one of the authors during game play rather than with other students,
limiting the possible validity of the results presented

On the other hand, the Patient-Centeredness, Diversity and Ethics, and
Community-Centeredness scales include subscale items that were more analogous and
would indicate that higher post-assessment scores equate to improved attitudes towards
IPE after game play. That said, the Diversity and Ethics scale was the only scale that
had a modest decrease in post-assessment scores in comparison to the pre-assessment
scores.

Due to the small number of participants, there is no statistical significance to the
results of the IPAS assessment. However, anecdotal comments from participants
indicated that playing the board game with students from other majors was an
experience that helped them discover their own biases and was a lesson in teamwork.
For example, at Sacramento State University, the six students who participated in the
largest group of players, often had difficulty agreeing on actions and working together.
The biology students with a confirmed health sciences interest commented to the
author that they had not worked with students from some of the other majors before
and that it was a learning experience about how different people approach problems.
Another student from a different session than the one previously described, commented
that it was sometimes frustrating to play the game when they had to depend on other
players who interpreted things differently. While this is anecdotal, these comments
indicate that the experience of playing the collaborative board game did cause students
to consider key areas of IPE that are measured by the IPAS, particularly teamwork
roles and responsibilities and interprofessional biases.

Lessons Learned

While there is little statistical impact in the current study and not all students
completed the IPAS assessment or chose to share comments, the comments they did
receive lead the authors of this paper to postulate that with more participants there

7



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

could be significant data collected. Furthermore, for universities where IPE
opportunities are limited for undergraduate students, offering a collaborative health
sciences-focused board game experience can be a cost-saving opportunity for low-risk
IPE. IPE educational opportunities ideally allow students to learn how to work with
other students with different backgrounds and experiences with a goal that is reflective
of a health care focus1,2. Playing a board game with a health care focus, such as
working as a team where each member has specific skills and different roles to prevent
a pandemic, allows students to have access to an IPE-style experience without having
to wait to be enrolled in the higher-level courses that are often where students
encounter IPE.

The authors note that another significant limitation to this study is the small
participant size and possible self-selection. Challenges with marketing and student time
and interest contributed to the small participant pool size. The few students who
participated may have had some familiarity with board gaming and enjoyed
collaborative games prior to playing Pandemic. It is possible that offering the gaming
sessions in a dedicated space specifically for health sciences students to converge, such
as a health sciences lounge or at a health sciences library, might assist future research
with recruitment. Alternatively, offering gaming sessions as part of student orientations
for IPE programs could potentially contribute to increased engagement. Having to
travel to different areas of campus, which might be far from health sciences classrooms,
was a deterrent for participation. Students were sometimes reluctant to complete the
pre-/post-IPAS and this did limit the number of results. Being able to offer incentives
for the completion of the IPAS probably would have increased participant completion
rates. The IPAS would also benefit from collecting more specific demographic data,
and in future research utilizing the IPAS, it would be very helpful for the IPAS to be
modified to reflect this need.

Many of the IPE opportunities at the participating universities are only open to
students enrolled in higher-level health sciences programs. The authors hoped that by
opening the gaming IPE experience to students in nonhealth sciences focused
programs, they could increase participation in the study, and more students would be
able to experience IPE for the first time. The authors felt that by being more open and
inclusive of students in nonhealth sciences departments, this IPE experience would also
be more reflective of the Interprofessional Practice (IPP) experience. IPP is often a
clinical experience and IPE is designed to help prepare students to enter clinical
settings where IPP is an expected experience, however in many settings, IPP includes
professionals such as social workers, advocates, and religious counsellors, who are not
well-represented in IPE experiences in the published literature. The authors hope that
future IPE experiences will be more inclusive to the students who will take on these
roles and that future research will find a way to record if IPE with students outside
health sciences disciplines is helpful for professional development.

This research was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the authors
recognize that it might be difficult to replicate this research during a pandemic as
in-person gathering and playing board games are not recommended at the time of the
writing of this paper. There is an application-based mobile version of the game that
could be utilized. However, without the in-person interaction, it would be difficult to

8



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

determine if the IPE interaction occurred utilizing measurements based on in-person
IPE interventions. It is also important to acknowledge that a version of the game that
requires the use of mobile devices is an equity issue, particularly for students who
customarily utilize campus-provided devices, as not all campuses provide mobile
devices to all students, internet access can be an issue, and it might not be permissible
for students to download and use the application-based version of the game on a
campus-provided device.

It is also worth noting that playing a game about preventing a pandemic while
simultaneously experiencing a real-life pandemic might not be the most appropriate
choice, so other collaborative board games should be explored as an option. The
authors recognize that playing a game about preventing a pandemic before
experiencing a pandemic in real life might affect participants who have played the
game, such as increased understanding of the importance of collaboration from
professionals around the world, and hope that future research will explore these and
other concepts as appropriate and with all due consideration to the well-being of the
participants.

Conclusion

Gamification and IPE are two unique services that libraries can offer their institutions.
Using a popular board game provides an opportunity to engage students in health
sciences-related majors who are interested in games but might not otherwise be
interested in participating in IPE opportunities. This may be particularly important
for students who choose to work in health-focused fields, such as health advocacy,
medical engineering, recreational therapy, and health care administration. These
student groups are generally overlooked in traditional IPE activities but may benefit
from IPE since they will most likely work with traditional health sciences practitioners
in their future career paths. It is also important to note that using a relatively low-cost
game, which does not require special technology or access to the internet to use,
ensures that students and institutions with different levels of access to technology and
with different budgets have an opportunity to offer a low-stress IPE experience for
students.

While there are many examples of successful gamification and of IPE in libraries, we
understand that our research does not represent success, but rather an opportunity for
future research.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge all the
students who participated in this research and completed the IPAS. The authors would
like to thank and acknowledge Nina Exner for her assistance with the SPSS software
and her kindness in assisting the authors with this paper.

Declaration of Interest: None to report

9



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

Contributions:

Rachel Keiko Stark facilitated a request for a collaborative IRB. Both authors
marketed and conducted the research studies at each of their institutions and gathered
formal IPAS responses. Rachel Keiko Stark entered all pre- and post-IPAS assessment
responses into Qualtrics while Eugenia Opuda ran the responses through the SPSS
software and ran paired sample statistics. Nina Exner was consulted on interpreting
the data obtained through SPSS and the authors thank and appreciate her assistance.
Rachel Keiko Stark also gathered informal participant comments. Both authors
contributed to writing and editing the manuscript.

References

1. World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education
and collaborative practice [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2010. [2010;
cited 2021 Jun 14]. Available from:
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/framework-for-action-on-interprofessional-
education-collaborative-practice
2. Reeves S, Perrier L, Goldman J, Freeth D, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional
education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane
Database of Syst Rev [Internet]. 2013;(3):CD002213.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002213.pub3
3. Reeves S, Palaganas J, Zierler B. An updated synthesis of review evidence of
interprofessional education. J Allied Health. 2017 Mar;46(1):56–61.
4. Lateef F. Inter-professional education, inter-professional practice and team science:
learning together; working together. EIMJ. 2018 Feb;10(4):81–91.
doi:10.21315/eimj2018.10.4.8
5. Sunguya BF, Hinthong W, Jimba M, Yasuoka J. Interprofessional education for
whom? — challenges and lessons learned from its implementation in developed
countries and their application to developing countries: a systematic review. PLoS
ONE. 2014 May;9(5): e96724. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096724
6. Giordano C, Umland E, Lyons KJ. Attitudes of faculty and students in medicine
and the health professions toward interprofessional education. J Allied Health. 2012
Mar;41(1):21–5.
7. Gary JC, Gosselin K, Bentley R. Health science center faculty attitudes towards
interprofessional education and teamwork. J Interprof Care. 2018 Mar;32(2):231–4.
doi:10.1080/13561820.2017.1376626
8. Fotaris P, Mastoras T. Escape rooms for learning: a systematic review. In:
Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game Based Learning [Internet].
ACPI; 2019 Oct. 30. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.34190/GBL.19.179
9. Friedrich C, Teaford H, Taubenheim A, Boland P, Sick B. Escaping the professional
silo: an escape room implemented in an interprofessional education curriculum. J
Interprof Care. 2019 Sep;33(5):573–5. doi:10.1080/13561820.2018.1538941
10. Nieh H-P, Wu W-C. Effects of a collaborative board game on bullying intervention:
a group-randomized controlled trial. J School Health. 2018 Oct;88(10):725–33.
doi:10.1111/josh.12675
11. Arnab S, Clarke S, Morini L. Co-creativity through play and game design thinking.
EJEL. 2019 Sep;17(3). doi:10.34190/JEL.17.3.002

10

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/framework-for-action-on-interprofessional-education-collaborative-practice
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/framework-for-action-on-interprofessional-education-collaborative-practice
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002213.pub3
http://dx.doi.org/10.21315/eimj2018.10.4.8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096724
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1376626
https://dx.doi.org/10.34190/GBL.19.179
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2018.1538941
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12675
http://dx.doi.org/10.34190/JEL.17.3.002


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

12. Singh P, Niranjan I. Using groupwork in the designing and playing of board games
in occupational health and safety. Groupwork. 2012 Jan;22(3):65–82.
13. Gauthier A, Kato PM, Bul KCM, Dunwell I, Walker-Clarke A, Lameras P. Board
games for health: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Games Health J.
2019 Apr;8(2):85–100. doi:10.1089/g4h.2018.0017
14. Vrbancic EK, Byerley SL. High-touch, low-tech: investigating the value of an
in-person library orientation game. Coll Undergrad Libr. 2018 Jan;25(1):39–51.
doi:10.1080/10691316.2017.1318429
15. Renner BR, Cahoon E, Allegri F. Low-tech scavenger hunt model for student
orientation. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016 Oct;35(4):372–87.
doi:10.1080/02763869.2016.1220754
16. Alvarez V. Engaging students in the library through tabletop gaming. KQ.
2017;45(4):40–9.
17. Elkins AJ, Hollister JM. Power up: Games and gaming in library and information
science curricula in the United States. JELIS. 2020 Apr;61(2):229–52.
doi:10.3138/jelis.2019-0038.r1
18. Norris J, Carpenter JG, Eaton J, Guo J-W, Lassche M, Pett MA, Blumenthal DK.
The development and validation of the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale: assessing the
interprofessional attitudes of students in the health professions. Acad Med. 2015
Oct;90(10):1394–400. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000764
19. Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. Core competencies for
interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel [Internet].
Washington, DC: Interprofessional Education Collaborative; 2011 [cited 2021 Jun 14].
Available from:https://ipec.memberclicks.net/assets/2011-Original.pdf

11

https://doi-org.unh.idm.oclc.org/10.1089/g4h.2018.0017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2017.1318429
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2016.1220754
http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jelis.2019-0038.r1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000764
https://ipec.memberclicks.net/assets/2011-Original.pdf

