Interprofessional education in pandemic times: a case study at a federal university in São Paulo

Girundi, Cynthia; Bettine, Marco; Uchôa-Figueiredo, Lúcia da Rocha

doi:10.1590/interface.260174

Abstract

The study investigated the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on interprofessional health education at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Baixada Santista campus, analyzing both in-person and remote contexts. The aim was to understand how education was reorganized and its effects on interprofessionalism. Using a mixed-methods approach with concurrent triangulation, 191 students and 49 faculty members were involved, with data collected through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The analysis, based on Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, led to the development of categories representing the experiences. The results highlighted technological inequalities and challenges in remote learning, such as reduced interaction and adaptation of interprofessional practices. However, there was increased faculty support and dialogue. The study concludes that interprofessional education is essential, but it requires integrative strategies in the in-person context to overcome the weaknesses of remote learning and strengthen collaborative skills.

Keywords
Interprofessional education; Emergency remote teaching; Higher education; COVID-19; Collaborative learning

Resumo

O estudo investigou a influência da pandemia de Covid-19 na formação interprofissional em Saúde na Universidade Federal de São Paulo, campus Baixada Santista, analisando os contextos presencial e remoto. Objetivou compreender como a formação foi reorganizada e seus efeitos na interprofissionalidade. Utilizando método misto de triangulação concomitante, envolveram-se 191 estudantes e 49 docentes, com dados coletados por questionários e entrevistas semiestruturadas. Na análise, fundamentada na Teoria do Agir Comunicativo, de Habermas, construíram-se categorias representativas das experiências. Os resultados destacaram desigualdades tecnológicas e desafios no ensino remoto, como menor interação e adaptação das práticas interprofissionais. Porém, houve maior acolhimento docente e diálogo. Conclui-se que a formação interprofissional é essencial, mas requer estratégias integradoras no contexto presencial para superar fragilidades do ensino remoto e fortalecer competências colaborativas.

Palavras-chave
Educação Interprofissional; Ensino remoto emergencial; Ensino superior; Covid-19; Aprendizado colaborativo

Resumen

El estudio investigó la influencia de la pandemia de COVID-19 en la formación interprofesional en salud en la Universidad Federal de São Paulo, campus Baixada Santista, analizando los contextos presencial y a distancia. El objetivo fue comprender cómo se reorganizó la formación y sus efectos en la interprofesionalidad. Utilizando el método mixto de triangulación concomitante, se envolvieron 191 alumnos y 49 docentes, con datos colectados por cuestionarios y entrevistas semiestructuradas. En el análisis fundamentado en la Teoría de la Acción Comunicativa, de Habermas, se construyeron categorías representativas de las experiencias. Los resultados destacaron desigualdades tecnológicas y desafíos en la enseñanza a distancia, tales como menor interacción y adaptación de las prácticas interprofesionales. No obstante, hubo mayor acogida docente y diálogo. Se concluyó que la formación interprofesional es esencial, pero requiere estrategias integradoras en el contexto presencial para superar fragilidades de la enseñanza a distancia y fortalecer competencias colaborativas.

Palabras clave
Educación interprofesional; Enseñanza a distancia de emergencia; Enseñanza Superior; COVID-19; Aprendizaje colaborativo

Introduction

Interprofessional health education at the Institute of Health and Society (ISS), part of the Federal University of São Paulo, Baixada Santista campus (Unifesp-BS), needed to adapt quickly to the demands of remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2006, ISS, home to the Physical Education, Physical Therapy, Nutrition, Psychology, Social Work, and Occupational Therapy programs, has been known for its innovative approach to interprofessional education, grounded in both common and specific educational pillars. However, the pandemic forced an abrupt transition to online teaching and raised questions about how interprofessional education could be maintained and adapted under these extraordinary circumstances.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO)¹, Interprofessional Education (IPE) occurs when students from two or more professions learn from one another, about one another, and with one another to enable effective collaboration and improve health care, patient safety, and the quality of care. Thus, there is a shift in the traditional logic of health education, opening space for the discussion of interprofessionalism².

According to Barr³ and Batista⁴, IPE is committed to the development of common, specific, and collaborative competencies to foster respect, participation, and negotiation within a collaborative framework. Common competencies refer to what is shared across professions but do not necessarily presuppose interaction between fields. Specific competencies pertain to the knowledge that distinguishes the professions and evoke the notion of complementarity, insofar as knowledge from one area can be integrated with and expanded by that of another. For this complementarity to take effect, however, collaborative competencies are indispensable, through which professionals learn to integrate and collaborate with one another and with patients, families, communities, and institutions.

The IPE is based on the premise of interaction among students from different programs, who, by practicing common, specific, and collaborative competencies, will be able to work in an interprofessional manner, engaging in collaborative interprofessional practice¹.

At Unifesp-BS, in order to make this a reality, the curriculum was organized into four educational pillars, composed of interdisciplinary modules. Three of these pillars are common to the six programs offered: the “Human Being in Their Biological Dimension” pillar (BIO Pillar), the “Human Being and Their Social Integration” pillar (IS Pillar), and the “Health Work” pillar (TS Pillar). In addition, there is a specific track focused on the professional field chosen by the student through the Unified Selection System (Sisu), called the “Specific Health Track”⁵.

The benefits of IPE and collaborative interprofessional practice in the context of health education have been proven⁶. Considering, in particular, studies involving students and graduates of Unifesp-BS⁷^-⁹, it is noteworthy that these are students who underwent in-person education. However, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 forced higher education, particularly in health fields, to shift to an online format. This scenario, referred to in various ways as emergency remote learning or online education, was regulated by the Ministry of Education (MEC)¹⁰, and represented a significant transformation in pedagogical practices.

Following the period of uncertainty and changes brought about by the pandemic, it is essential to reflect on health education in light of the lessons learned. The health field is intrinsically linked to caring for others, and at a time when care has become as vital as it is challenging, it is necessary to assess the current state of education, with an emphasis on interprofessionalism.

In this context, we focused our attention on the reality of teaching and research, exploring how the organization and interactions in the interprofessional education of ISS health courses were influenced by in-person and online contexts, from the perspective of faculty and students. The objective of this study is to understand the interprofessional educational process and analyze the influences of these contexts on education.

Methodology

This research adopted a mixed-methods design, comprising a quantitative phase and a qualitative phase, with a concurrent triangulation design¹¹. This design was chosen at the onset of the pandemic, when educational activities were still suspended and the duration of online instruction was uncertain due to frequent updates to government decrees. Data collection took place from 2021 to 2022.

Students from ISS undergraduate health programs who enrolled between 2018 and 2020 and were enrolled in at least one of the three common tracks of the program (biological, social integration, or health work) participated in both phases. In addition to the students, tenured faculty members who worked in the TS, IS, and BIO tracks in 2020 were also invited to participate in the study. Failure to complete the instrument was considered an exclusion criterion for both faculty and students.

Instruments

In the quantitative phase, students answered a semi-structured questionnaire developed by the researchers, covering sociodemographic information, access to and familiarity with digital technologies, and the educational process before and during the pandemic. Faculty members answered a similar questionnaire also developed by the researchers, addressing the same topics but focusing on the work process before and during the pandemic. Participants received the invitation to participate in the study via email, containing the link to the Informed Consent Form and to the questionnaires for students and faculty.

In the qualitative phase, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with faculty and students, guided by the question: “How is your training/work process unfolding within this educational model aimed at interprofessionalism?” The interviews were conducted by the authors to understand the demands and experiences arising from interprofessional training; to understand the organizational requirements for its implementation; to detail the interactions established among students, among faculty members, between both groups, as well as with aspects of the pedagogical project (educational pillars, internships, research, extension, and faculty development), with services, and with the community; and to understand how the online teaching process unfolded with special home-based activities (ADE) during the pandemic. The interviews were conducted virtually via video call using Google Meet and were recorded to facilitate the transcription process for data analysis. The criterion of data saturation was used to determine when to discontinue the interviews.

Data analysis

Data from the quantitative stage were analyzed descriptively, in terms of frequency, mean, and standard deviation, to characterize the sample and describe the strategies and tools used in interprofessional education, with the aid of IMS-SPSS software, version 26. The analysis of data from the qualitative phase, however, was based on the analysis of speech acts proposed by Jürgen Habermas¹²^,¹³, in order to construct a collective subject, drawing on Habermasian communicative hermeneutics grounded in Weberian analysis of the ‘ideal type’. Weber developed the ‘ideal type’ as a way to understand the complexity of the social world through the construction of ideal models that represent the main characteristics of a given phenomenon. The ‘ideal type’ is an abstraction that does not necessarily correspond to reality, but serves as a tool for analysis and comparison¹²^,¹³.

This process was carried out by two researchers, who identified 548 key expressions, 25 central ideas, and 5 categories in the analysis of the students. In the analysis of the faculty, we identified 581 key expressions, 24 central ideas, and 5 categories. In this study, we will present two categories from the students: “Interprofessional Education during the Pandemic” and “Interprofessional Experiences,” and three categories from the faculty: “Working within the Logic of Interprofessionalism,” “Faculty Work for Interprofessional Education during the Pandemic,” and “Faculty Development.”

To ensure the consistency of the results, we conducted an exhaustive review of the material to identify the convergences and divergences between students and faculty, and we systematized the findings from the integration of these stages into summary tables that will be presented below.

During the drafting and revision of this manuscript, artificial intelligence tools were used as linguistic support. All scientific decisions, interpretations, and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Unifesp-BS, CAAE 37040120.3.0000.5505, under opinion no. 4.481.747.

Results

A total of 191 students participated in the quantitative phase of the study, with a mean age of 23 years; the majority were female (73.8%), white (71.2%), single (91.6%), living with their parents (76.9%), not working (81.7%), and not serving as caregivers (84.3%). Regarding the year of enrollment, 29% enrolled in 2018 or earlier, 39% in 2019, and 32% in 2020.

The faculty sample from the quantitative phase consisted of 49 participants, with a mean age of 48 years, with females being the most common (68%). White race/ethnicity was predominant (94%). In addition, the majority of the sample is married (47%), has children (57%), and lives with children and partners (42%).

It was observed that 10% of students applied for the Unifesp COVID-19 emergency aid, with the highest concentration in Social Work programs (afternoon and evening). Within this group, 63% needed equipment, 32% needed equipment and internet access, and 5% needed only internet access. These results reflect a slightly lower percentage compared to the Baixada Santista campus as a whole, which recorded 14.5% of similar aid requests.

In the qualitative phase, 11 students from the Social Work (day and evening), Nutrition, and Physical Education programs participated in the interviews. In addition to 12 faculty members from the broad fields of biological sciences, humanities, and health, the specific programs were not identified to ensure the participants’ anonymity.

For practical purposes, the results will be presented in a systematic manner in tables, already integrating the quantitative phase and qualitative phase phases as recommended in mixed-methods studies, addressing the categories mentioned. Frame 1 presents the results for students, and Frame 2 those for faculty members.

Thumbnail

Frame 1
Integration of the results from the quantitative and qualitative phases of the students

Thumbnail

Frame 2
Integration of results from the quantitative and qualitative stages of the faculty

Discussion

From the outset of the research, we assumed that emergency remote learning was not limited to the technical differences of the virtual environment but also involved organizational and interactional implications, which are fundamental to interprofessional education. The pandemic impacted society in an unequal and unpredictable manner, creating significant challenges in education¹⁴. In this context, the resumption of emergency remote learning raised concerns about students’ access to technology and highlighted socioeconomic inequalities.

In order to mitigate these inequalities, Unifesp organized an Emergency Plan for Student Retention, including calls for financial aid, distribution of food baskets, computer loans, and connectivity support, demonstrating the importance of addressing material dimensions to ensure the continuity of studies during the pandemic¹⁵. This demonstrates the intertwining of the World of Life and Systems¹²^,¹³, emphasizing the need to mobilize the material reproduction mechanisms of the World of Life to ensure the material conditions necessary for education during the pandemic.

In our research, we observed that some students applied for Unifesp’s emergency COVID-19 aid, which represents a slightly lower percentage compared to the Baixada Santista campus as a whole¹⁶. However, it is important to note that, during the interviews, none of the students mentioned the need for this aid, although they reported knowing classmates who needed it and even knowing people who dropped out of their courses due to a lack of conditions to continue. Despite these reports, Unifesp recorded the lowest dropout rate of the past five years in 2020¹⁵.

The student sample reflects the profile of Brazilian university students¹⁷ and of Unifesp itself¹⁵, with a predominance of women, white students, young singles living with their parents, childless, unemployed, and without caregiving responsibilities. However, minority groups with distinct characteristics were also identified, such as male students, Black students, and those with an income of up to one minimum wage, who required emergency aid.

These findings point to the democratization of higher education, but also highlight the inequalities present in the learning environment, which reveals the importance of the actions implemented through emergency calls for proposals to address the demands of the pandemic, promoting equal opportunities and dialogue among social groups. However, it is necessary not only to ensure admission but also the retention and success of these students, as well as to consider the material conditions and the political-educational project for a more just and egalitarian society¹⁸^,¹⁹.

Still regarding material conditions, most students and faculty reported access to high-speed internet and comfort in using technologies, although the perception of technology’s usefulness for interprofessional education has decreased slightly. Most faculty also stated they had no experience with distance learning (DL). The use of the online format was intensely debated by faculty members, primarily due to ideological opposition to the distance learning model for the health field, which aligns with the position of the National Health Council itself, which opposes the authorization of health courses via distance learning, as it recognizes that interprofessional training is compromised—or even prevented—in this format²⁰.

Noteworthy is the university’s emphasis on distinguishing the temporary DL format from conventional distance learning. Hodges et al.²¹ clarify that the difference between distance learning and emergency remote education (ERE) lies in their design and planning. Distance learning is a pre-planned modality, with structured objectives, teaching materials, and assessments, based on the use of information and communication technologies for non-face-to-face learning. ERE, on the other hand, emerged as an emergency measure in response to urgent situations—such as during the COVID-19 pandemic—and was implemented without adequate prior planning.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight the association between the precarious nature of teaching work in online education modalities, as mentioned earlier and warned about prior to the pandemic²²^-²⁴, and the difficulties faced by students in balancing their study routine at home. Faculty members engaged in online teaching not only because of the mandatory shift to the virtual format mandated by the MEC, but also out of concern for maintaining the connection between the university, students, and support services following the suspension of in-person activities.

However, the pandemic resulted in an increased workload related to activity planning and a shift in the distribution of hours between teaching, research, and extension for most faculty members. The concern with maintaining the connection with students led faculty members to seek alternatives, such as virtual discussion groups, extension projects, and inter-module and inter-axis meetings, as was also observed by Pezzato et al.²⁵. In addition, the use of online tools also facilitated contact with other institutions, including those outside the country, and increased the diversity of discussions fostered by the academic areas.

Changes in teacher-student interaction were also observed during the pandemic. The relationship, which was previously viewed—at times—through the lens of hierarchy and authoritarianism, and which created barriers and resembled a strategic approach aimed at maintaining the teacher’s status and the student’s desire to pass, became more horizontal. This occurred because students began to have space to engage in dialogue regarding the construction of pedagogical practices during the pandemic, both in the classroom and in committees, and also to have elements of their own worlds at the center of teachers’ actions. Teacher support for emotional and academic issues weakened by distancing and students’ feelings of loneliness was also highlighted in other studies²⁶^-²⁸.

We can observe a shift toward the horizontalization of discourse, which in no way diminishes the identity of the teacher or the student. This horizontalization occurs through closeness, through listening, understanding, and comprehending, and by seeking the best argument within the possibilities of joint action. Discursive horizontality, rooted in Habermas¹²^,¹³, refers to a type of communication that occurs in an egalitarian environment, where all participants have an equal opportunity to express their opinions and arguments. This communication is not hierarchical, and all participants are considered equal and capable of contributing to the conversation, regardless of their status or social position.

During the pandemic, it became evident that professors, far from being unconcerned with students—as might have appeared in the pre-pandemic scenario—demonstrated a shift in attitude toward the demands arising from this situation. And the revival of this welcoming mindset within a university that prioritizes health, that prioritizes Care²⁹. A form of care that carries with it, in a movement of reconstruction, values, concepts, and practices—and which is contested in a world of inequalities and suffering—is a pivotal point for the development of this type of education, since faculty members have demonstrated a full capacity to listen, to understand, and to build complex processes of otherness at a very important moment in human history.

In this sense, we can draw a parallel with patient-centered care, which is a competency advocated for collaborative interprofessional practice¹, and apply it to the student as well, since the educational process also requires student-centered care, as proposed by Carl Rogers³⁰, or relationship-centered care.

It is observed that this horizontal approach allows for the sharing of the World of Life, as these are concerns that address students beyond their academic performance. This approach brings us back to the precepts of educational practice proposed by Freire³¹^,³², in which affection is a fundamental element in the relationship between educator and learner, as it allows the learning process to occur in a fuller and more meaningful way.

Although the pandemic fostered closer student-teacher interaction in terms of affection and solidarity, at the same time, with its various contradictions, it hindered the interaction process during learning. The virtual environment was definitively rejected by the majority of students who, even while acknowledging the consequences of their lack of participation during synchronous sessions, were unable to interact effectively during virtual sessions. The discomfort with the silence and the avatars (the way each student’s image was displayed in the virtual classroom) was a consensus among both students and faculty. This behavior of low interaction and participation during online sessions has also been reported in several studies²⁶^,²⁷^,³³^,³⁴, which reinforces the importance of in-person learning in health education, especially due to the difficulty in adapting practices, which led to a greater sense of loss in learning, particularly in this educational model, which is largely practice-oriented.

Furthermore, the difficulty in interacting and the absence of practical training ultimately undermined strategies for interprofessional collaboration, since despite mixed-group classes, debates and group work were no longer encouraged, reinforcing students’ natural tendency to gravitate toward their own discipline due to affinity. The absence of practical training in online health education was also a recurring theme in several studies²⁶^,²⁷^,³⁵. Lackie et al.³⁶ had already warned that, despite the possibility of “transferring” education to an online setting due to the pandemic, interprofessional education might not receive the same intensity or attention—a finding confirmed in our study.

Therefore, if we understand interprofessional education as training that can build professional identities grounded in action oriented toward understanding—free from coercion—or more specifically toward communicative action, considering that the World of Life transcends times and cultures, we must expand opportunities for interaction in the learning process, taking into account personal experiences, life stories, and aspirations, as well as the sharing of values, beliefs, and traditions.

Final considerations

We observed diverse experiences and demands regarding interprofessional education. We identified the importance of the faculty member’s training background and the students’ experiences in sustaining this educational approach.

We observed that the pandemic brought various challenges and negative feelings of loss, as well as the precariousness of teaching work in the emergency remote learning format. We identified a consensus that this format was a temporary alternative due to the pandemic situation, but that it in no way replaces the in-person format, mainly due to the difficulty of adapting interprofessional and professional practices.

We also observed a movement toward collectively addressing the challenges imposed by the pandemic, which disrupted entrenched structures and brought the educational pillars closer together at this time. The activities carried out during the pandemic also increased interaction among the pillars through interactive virtual activities.

However, the virtual format also brought some difficulties, such as a decrease in student participation. Furthermore, we observed a weakening of interprofessional strategies, which ultimately led to more disciplinary and single-professional approaches.

Despite the difficulty of interaction for learning, we identified a shift in the teacher-student relationship toward greater welcoming and dialogue, bringing learning closer to educational practices that value care and solidarity, which indicates a movement toward the decolonization of education.

Based on this overview, we understand that the creation of spaces for dialogue, free from coercion, that enable broad discussion in the search for consensus is a necessity that will ensure the sustainability of this pedagogical proposal, bringing it closer to communicative action. In this sense, we view teacher development and the maintenance of more horizontal interactions with students—as occurred during the pandemic—as bridges to this dialogue

We highlight, however, some limitations of the research, such as the fact that we analyzed interprofessional education during the pandemic while it was still unfolding and its cross-sectional design. Assessing the influence of an event without historical distance may limit the understanding of its impact and implications, hindering a complete grasp of the context and circumstances surrounding it. Thus, we view our analysis as a possible record within this context of immersion, which may inform future studies on the pandemic’s influence on education.

We therefore suggest that future research continue to analyze training, with a particular focus on tracking cohorts that underwent ADE, both during the program and after graduation.

Girundi C, Bettine M, Uchôa-Figueiredo LR. Interprofessional education in pandemic times: a case study at a federal university in São Paulo. Interface (Botucatu). 2026; 30: e260490 https://doi.org/10.1590/interface.260490

Data availability

The contents underlying the research text are non-handwritten contents.

References

¹ Organização Mundial da Saúde. Marco para ação em educação interprofissional e prática colaborativa. Genebra: OMS; 2010.
² Barr H. Evaluation, evidence and effectiveness. J Interprof Care. 2005; 19(6):535-6. doi: 10.1080/13561820500440644.
» https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820500440644
³ Barr H. Competent to collaborate: towards a competency-based model for interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 1998;12(2):181-7. doi: 10.3109/13561829809014104.
» https://doi.org/10.3109/13561829809014104
⁴ Batista NA. Educação interprofissional em saúde: concepções e práticas. Cad Fnepas. 2012; 2(2):25-8.
⁵ Poletto PR, Jurdi APS. A experiência de revisão das matrizes curriculares em um projeto pedagógico inovador: caminhos para fortalecer a educação interprofissional em Saúde. Interface (Botucatu). 2018; 22 Supl 2:1777-86. doi: 10.1590/1807-57622017.0819.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622017.0819
⁶ Reeves S, Fletcher S, Barr H, Birch I, Boet S, Davies N, et al. A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Med Teach. 2016; 38(7):656-68. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173663.
» https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173663
⁷ Aparecida M, Freitas DO, Aparecida R, Rossit S. A disciplina de formação docente em saúde: espaço para a prática interprofissional e o desenvolvimento de competências. Enseñanza Cienc. 2017; (Extra):2619.
⁸ Casanova IA, Batista NA, Moreno LR. A Educação Interprofissional e a prática compartilhada em programas de residência multiprofissional em Saúde. Interface (Botucatu). 2018; 22 Supl 1:1325-37. doi: 10.1590/1807-57622017.0186.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622017.0186
⁹ Rossit RAS, Freitas MAO, Batista SHSS, Batista NA. Constructing professional identity in interprofessional health education as perceived by graduates. Interface (Botucatu). 2018; 22 Suppl 1:1399-410. doi: 10.1590/1807-57622017.0184.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622017.0184
¹⁰ Brasil. Ministério da Educação. Portaria nº 544, de 16 de Junho de 2020: dispõe sobre a substituição das aulas presenciais por aulas em meios digitais, enquanto durar a situação de pandemia do novo coronavírus - Covid-19. Diário Oficial da União. 17 Jun 2020; Sec. 1, p. 62.
¹¹ Creswell JW, Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3a ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2017.
¹² Habermas J. Teoria do agir comunicativo: racionalidade da ação e racionalização social. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes; 2012.
¹³ Habermas J. Teoria do agir comunicativo: sobre a crítica da razão funcionalista. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes; 2012.
¹⁴ Souza RMP. A educação interprofissional e o trabalho colaborativo no enfrentamento da pandemia da Covid-19: uma contribuição a partir da atuação em rede. In: Souza RMP, organizadora. A educação interprofissional e o trabalho colaborativo no enfrentamento da pandemia da Covid-19. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, ENSP, RedEscola; 2021. p. 26-47.
¹⁵ Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Relatório integrado de gestão [Internet]. São Paulo: Unifesp; 2020 [citado 15 Jan 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.unifesp.br/reitoria/proplan/relatorio-de-gestao
» https://www.unifesp.br/reitoria/proplan/relatorio-de-gestao
¹⁶ Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Portaria Prograd nº 2091, de 30 de Julho de 2020: define e normatiza a retomada das atividades acadêmicas dos cursos de graduação, excepcionalmente, em regime de atividades domiciliares especiais, durante a suspensão das atividades presenciais devido à pandemia do Covid-19 [Internet]. São Paulo: Unifesp; 2020 [citado 15 Jan 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.unifesp.br/reitoria/prograd/legislacao-normas/category/66-portarias
» https://www.unifesp.br/reitoria/prograd/legislacao-normas/category/66-portarias
¹⁷ Associação Nacional dos Dirigentes das Instituições Federais de Ensino Superior. V Pesquisa Nacional de Perfil Socioeconômico e Cultural dos (as) Graduandos (as) das IFES [Internet]. Brasília, DF: ANDIFES; 2018 [citado 15 Jan 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.andifes.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/V-Pesquisa-Nacional-de-Perfil-Socioeconomico-e-Cultural-dos-as-Graduandos-as-das-IFES-2018.pdf
» https://www.andifes.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/V-Pesquisa-Nacional-de-Perfil-Socioeconomico-e-Cultural-dos-as-Graduandos-as-das-IFES-2018.pdf
¹⁸ Rosemberg F. Ação afirmativa no ensino superior brasileiro: pontos para reflexão. In: Mandarino, A. C. S. Racismos: olhares plurais. Salvador: UFBA; 2010. p. 93-127.
¹⁹ Gonçalves MAR, Siss A. Dossiê: as políticas educacionais de ação afirmativa para negros no ensino básico e superior e seus desdobramentos. Periferia. 2023; 15:73581. doi: 10.12957/periferia.2023.73581.
» https://doi.org/10.12957/periferia.2023.73581
²⁰ Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. Resolução 569 de 8 de Dezembro de 2017. Diário Oficial da União. 26 Fev 2018.
²¹ Marcon N, Rebechi RR. A diferença entre ensino remoto emergencial e ensino a distância. Debate Terminol. 2020; (18):92-100.
²² Lapa A, Pretto NDL. Educação a distância e precarização do trabalho docente. Em Aberto. 2010; 23(84):1-14. doi: 10.24109/2176-6673.emaberto.23i84.2263.
» https://doi.org/10.24109/2176-6673.emaberto.23i84.2263
²³ Veloso BG, Mill D. Precarização do trabalho docente na educação a distância: elementos para pensar a valorização da docência virtual. Educ Foco. 2018; 23(1):111-32. doi: 10.34019/2447-5246.2018.v23.20005.
» https://doi.org/10.34019/2447-5246.2018.v23.20005
²⁴ Benini EG, Silva VS, Meneghello PA, Guimarães GA, Prado AP. Educação a distância na reprodução do capital: entre a ampliação do acesso e a precarização e alienação do trabalho docente. Trab Educ Saude. 2020; 18(3):1-17. doi: 10.1590/1981-7746-sol00307.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-7746-sol00307
²⁵ Pezzato LM, Kurka AB, Goulart PM, Ramalho SA, Domingues AR, Furtado JP, et al. Construindo o próprio chão: narrativas de reinvenções da docência universitária na pandemia. Saude Redes. 2021; 7 Supl 1:193-204. doi: 10.18310/2446-4813.2021v7n1Supp193-204.
» https://doi.org/10.18310/2446-4813.2021v7n1Supp193-204
²⁶ Dantas Z. Os principais impactos da pandemia de Covid-19 na trajetória acadêmica dos graduandos da área da saúde Unifesp - campus Baixada Santista [dissertação]. Santos: Universidade Federal de São Paulo; 2022.
²⁷ Amaral E, Polydoro S. Os desafios da mudança para o ensino remoto emergencial na graduação na Unicamp - Brasil. Linha Mestra. 2020; 14(41a):52-62. doi: 10.34112/1980-9026a2020n41ap52-62.
» https://doi.org/10.34112/1980-9026a2020n41ap52-62
²⁸ Winship JM, Falls K, Gregory M, Peron EP, Donohoe KL, Sargent L, et al. A case study in rapid adaptation of interprofessional education and remote visits during Covid-19. J Interprof Care. 2020; 34(5):702-5. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2020.1807921.
» https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1807921
²⁹ Ayres JRCM. Cuidado: trabalho, interação e saber nas práticas de saúde. Rev Baiana Enferm. 2017; 31(1):1-4.
³⁰ Rogers C. Liberdade para aprender nos anos oitenta. São Paulo: Martins Fontes; 1994.
³¹ Freire P. Pedagogia do amor. São Paulo: Editora Paz e Terra; 1992.
³² Freire P. Pedagogia da autonomia: saberes necessários à prática educativa. 25a ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra; 1996.
³³ Cerqueira BRS. Educação no ensino superior em tempos de pandemia. Olhar Prof. 2020; 23:1-5. doi: 10.5212/OlharProfr.v.23.2020.16175.209209226867.0616.
» https://doi.org/10.5212/OlharProfr.v.23.2020.16175.209209226867.0616
³⁴ Dias B, Matos HM, Ascenso LRS, Cunha FA, Mendanha Filho S, Rabelo ECA. Ensino remoto emergencial no curso de medicina: reflexões sobre o olhar discente. Intermedius Rev Ext UNIFIMES. 2021; 1(1):127-33.
³⁵ Fernandes SF, Nunes RJA, Almeida Neta AG, Menezes HF, Melo K, Freitas RJM, et al. O uso do ensino remoto emergencial durante a pandemia da Covid-19: experiência de docentes na educação superior em enfermagem. Saude Redes. 2021; 7 Supl 1:83-92.
³⁶ Lackie K, Najjar G, El-Awaisi A, Frost J, Green C, Langlois S, et al. Interprofessional education and collaborative practice research during the Covid-19 pandemic: considerations to advance the field. J Interprof Care. 2020; 34(5):583-6. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2020.1807481.
» https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1807481

Edited by

Editor
Tiago Rocha Pinto https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4834-2897

Associated editor
Franklin Delano Soares Forte https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4237-0184

Publication Dates

Publication in this collection
20 July 2026
Date of issue
2026

History

Received
11 Mar 2026
Accepted
29 Apr 2026

Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto (Open Access) sob a licença Creative Commons Attribution, que permite uso, distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio, sem restrições desde que o trabalho original seja corretamente citado.

[1] ¹ Organização Mundial da Saúde. Marco para ação em educação interprofissional e prática colaborativa. Genebra: OMS; 2010.

[2] ² Barr H. Evaluation, evidence and effectiveness. J Interprof Care. 2005; 19(6):535-6. doi: 10.1080/13561820500440644.
» https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820500440644

[3] ³ Barr H. Competent to collaborate: towards a competency-based model for interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 1998;12(2):181-7. doi: 10.3109/13561829809014104.
» https://doi.org/10.3109/13561829809014104

[4] ⁴ Batista NA. Educação interprofissional em saúde: concepções e práticas. Cad Fnepas. 2012; 2(2):25-8.

[5] ⁵ Poletto PR, Jurdi APS. A experiência de revisão das matrizes curriculares em um projeto pedagógico inovador: caminhos para fortalecer a educação interprofissional em Saúde. Interface (Botucatu). 2018; 22 Supl 2:1777-86. doi: 10.1590/1807-57622017.0819.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622017.0819

[6] ⁶ Reeves S, Fletcher S, Barr H, Birch I, Boet S, Davies N, et al. A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Med Teach. 2016; 38(7):656-68. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173663.
» https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173663

[7] ⁷ Aparecida M, Freitas DO, Aparecida R, Rossit S. A disciplina de formação docente em saúde: espaço para a prática interprofissional e o desenvolvimento de competências. Enseñanza Cienc. 2017; (Extra):2619.

[8] ⁸ Casanova IA, Batista NA, Moreno LR. A Educação Interprofissional e a prática compartilhada em programas de residência multiprofissional em Saúde. Interface (Botucatu). 2018; 22 Supl 1:1325-37. doi: 10.1590/1807-57622017.0186.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622017.0186

[9] ⁹ Rossit RAS, Freitas MAO, Batista SHSS, Batista NA. Constructing professional identity in interprofessional health education as perceived by graduates. Interface (Botucatu). 2018; 22 Suppl 1:1399-410. doi: 10.1590/1807-57622017.0184.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622017.0184

[10] ¹⁰ Brasil. Ministério da Educação. Portaria nº 544, de 16 de Junho de 2020: dispõe sobre a substituição das aulas presenciais por aulas em meios digitais, enquanto durar a situação de pandemia do novo coronavírus - Covid-19. Diário Oficial da União. 17 Jun 2020; Sec. 1, p. 62.

[11] ¹¹ Creswell JW, Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3a ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2017.

[12] ¹² Habermas J. Teoria do agir comunicativo: racionalidade da ação e racionalização social. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes; 2012.

[13] ¹³ Habermas J. Teoria do agir comunicativo: sobre a crítica da razão funcionalista. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes; 2012.

[14] ¹⁴ Souza RMP. A educação interprofissional e o trabalho colaborativo no enfrentamento da pandemia da Covid-19: uma contribuição a partir da atuação em rede. In: Souza RMP, organizadora. A educação interprofissional e o trabalho colaborativo no enfrentamento da pandemia da Covid-19. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, ENSP, RedEscola; 2021. p. 26-47.

[15] ¹⁵ Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Relatório integrado de gestão [Internet]. São Paulo: Unifesp; 2020 [citado 15 Jan 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.unifesp.br/reitoria/proplan/relatorio-de-gestao
» https://www.unifesp.br/reitoria/proplan/relatorio-de-gestao

[16] ¹⁶ Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Portaria Prograd nº 2091, de 30 de Julho de 2020: define e normatiza a retomada das atividades acadêmicas dos cursos de graduação, excepcionalmente, em regime de atividades domiciliares especiais, durante a suspensão das atividades presenciais devido à pandemia do Covid-19 [Internet]. São Paulo: Unifesp; 2020 [citado 15 Jan 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.unifesp.br/reitoria/prograd/legislacao-normas/category/66-portarias
» https://www.unifesp.br/reitoria/prograd/legislacao-normas/category/66-portarias

[17] ¹⁷ Associação Nacional dos Dirigentes das Instituições Federais de Ensino Superior. V Pesquisa Nacional de Perfil Socioeconômico e Cultural dos (as) Graduandos (as) das IFES [Internet]. Brasília, DF: ANDIFES; 2018 [citado 15 Jan 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.andifes.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/V-Pesquisa-Nacional-de-Perfil-Socioeconomico-e-Cultural-dos-as-Graduandos-as-das-IFES-2018.pdf
» https://www.andifes.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/V-Pesquisa-Nacional-de-Perfil-Socioeconomico-e-Cultural-dos-as-Graduandos-as-das-IFES-2018.pdf

[18] ¹⁸ Rosemberg F. Ação afirmativa no ensino superior brasileiro: pontos para reflexão. In: Mandarino, A. C. S. Racismos: olhares plurais. Salvador: UFBA; 2010. p. 93-127.

[19] ¹⁹ Gonçalves MAR, Siss A. Dossiê: as políticas educacionais de ação afirmativa para negros no ensino básico e superior e seus desdobramentos. Periferia. 2023; 15:73581. doi: 10.12957/periferia.2023.73581.
» https://doi.org/10.12957/periferia.2023.73581

[20] ²⁰ Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. Resolução 569 de 8 de Dezembro de 2017. Diário Oficial da União. 26 Fev 2018.

[21] ²¹ Marcon N, Rebechi RR. A diferença entre ensino remoto emergencial e ensino a distância. Debate Terminol. 2020; (18):92-100.

[22] ²² Lapa A, Pretto NDL. Educação a distância e precarização do trabalho docente. Em Aberto. 2010; 23(84):1-14. doi: 10.24109/2176-6673.emaberto.23i84.2263.
» https://doi.org/10.24109/2176-6673.emaberto.23i84.2263

[23] ²³ Veloso BG, Mill D. Precarização do trabalho docente na educação a distância: elementos para pensar a valorização da docência virtual. Educ Foco. 2018; 23(1):111-32. doi: 10.34019/2447-5246.2018.v23.20005.
» https://doi.org/10.34019/2447-5246.2018.v23.20005

[24] ²⁴ Benini EG, Silva VS, Meneghello PA, Guimarães GA, Prado AP. Educação a distância na reprodução do capital: entre a ampliação do acesso e a precarização e alienação do trabalho docente. Trab Educ Saude. 2020; 18(3):1-17. doi: 10.1590/1981-7746-sol00307.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-7746-sol00307

[25] ²⁵ Pezzato LM, Kurka AB, Goulart PM, Ramalho SA, Domingues AR, Furtado JP, et al. Construindo o próprio chão: narrativas de reinvenções da docência universitária na pandemia. Saude Redes. 2021; 7 Supl 1:193-204. doi: 10.18310/2446-4813.2021v7n1Supp193-204.
» https://doi.org/10.18310/2446-4813.2021v7n1Supp193-204

[26] ²⁶ Dantas Z. Os principais impactos da pandemia de Covid-19 na trajetória acadêmica dos graduandos da área da saúde Unifesp - campus Baixada Santista [dissertação]. Santos: Universidade Federal de São Paulo; 2022.

[27] ²⁷ Amaral E, Polydoro S. Os desafios da mudança para o ensino remoto emergencial na graduação na Unicamp - Brasil. Linha Mestra. 2020; 14(41a):52-62. doi: 10.34112/1980-9026a2020n41ap52-62.
» https://doi.org/10.34112/1980-9026a2020n41ap52-62

[28] ²⁸ Winship JM, Falls K, Gregory M, Peron EP, Donohoe KL, Sargent L, et al. A case study in rapid adaptation of interprofessional education and remote visits during Covid-19. J Interprof Care. 2020; 34(5):702-5. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2020.1807921.
» https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1807921

[29] ²⁹ Ayres JRCM. Cuidado: trabalho, interação e saber nas práticas de saúde. Rev Baiana Enferm. 2017; 31(1):1-4.

[30] ³⁰ Rogers C. Liberdade para aprender nos anos oitenta. São Paulo: Martins Fontes; 1994.

[31] ³¹ Freire P. Pedagogia do amor. São Paulo: Editora Paz e Terra; 1992.

[32] ³² Freire P. Pedagogia da autonomia: saberes necessários à prática educativa. 25a ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra; 1996.

[33] ³³ Cerqueira BRS. Educação no ensino superior em tempos de pandemia. Olhar Prof. 2020; 23:1-5. doi: 10.5212/OlharProfr.v.23.2020.16175.209209226867.0616.
» https://doi.org/10.5212/OlharProfr.v.23.2020.16175.209209226867.0616

[34] ³⁴ Dias B, Matos HM, Ascenso LRS, Cunha FA, Mendanha Filho S, Rabelo ECA. Ensino remoto emergencial no curso de medicina: reflexões sobre o olhar discente. Intermedius Rev Ext UNIFIMES. 2021; 1(1):127-33.

[35] ³⁵ Fernandes SF, Nunes RJA, Almeida Neta AG, Menezes HF, Melo K, Freitas RJM, et al. O uso do ensino remoto emergencial durante a pandemia da Covid-19: experiência de docentes na educação superior em enfermagem. Saude Redes. 2021; 7 Supl 1:83-92.

[36] ³⁶ Lackie K, Najjar G, El-Awaisi A, Frost J, Green C, Langlois S, et al. Interprofessional education and collaborative practice research during the Covid-19 pandemic: considerations to advance the field. J Interprof Care. 2020; 34(5):583-6. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2020.1807481.
» https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1807481

Category	Quantitative Data	Qualitative Data	Integration of Results
Characteristics	Average age: 23 years 73.8% female 39% enrolled in 2019 Participation across all programs, with the highest representation in psychology (23%), nutrition (22%), and physical therapy (18%).	“(...) I am about 22 years old, female, and a graduate of private schools. I enrolled at Unifesp in 2019 through the Enem and Sisu. (...) I chose a health-related program because I wanted to help people, and I studied nutrition because I enjoy the relationship with food (...).”	In both phases, female participation predominated, with the majority enrolling in 2019. Unlike the quantitative phase, the qualitative phase showed a predominance of the nutrition program.
Interprofessional training during the pandemic	10% of participants required emergency aid. 63% needed equipment, 32% needed equipment and internet, and 5% needed only internet. 68% had access to high-speed internet. 86% were comfortable with technology. 97% believe that technology helps with their studies.	“(...) I didn’t have any trouble with technology, but it was hard to get organized for online learning. As for the training, I went through an initial period of shock and difficulty keeping up with the online classes (...).” “I found it difficult to keep up with the online classes, even though they were recorded, and catching up on the material outside of class hours was very difficult, as I was unmotivated and felt like I was missing out on a quality education, mainly due to the inability to do the practical work. Even though I want to make it clear that I recognize the efforts of the university and the professors, it is frustrating not to have the kind of education described by upperclassmen and expected for the semesters, with the hope of experiencing care for people in person.” (...) there was a decrease in interaction among students and, especially, between different programs, since faculty members reduced group activities, and when they did occur, there was no longer a requirement to mix the different fields. (...) Considering the pandemic scenario, I note that there was a change in the teacher-student relationship, which became more welcoming, more open to dialogue and joint construction…	To continue their education during the pandemic, some students needed assistance, which was not reflected in the collective discourse. In both phases, they report having no difficulties with the technologies themselves and believe they can aid in their studies. However, they point to difficulties in organizing themselves for online learning and balancing their studies in the home environment. The sense of loss during online learning led to a lack of motivation to study, which seems to explain the lower interest in asynchronous activities, low participation in synchronous sessions, and the continued preference for other forms of learning during the pandemic. Finally, there was a shift in the perception of the relationship between students and faculty, toward greater openness and dialogue in the development of modules and attempts to resolve problems.
Interprofessional Experiences	Different courses identify various areas for teamwork. Day and evening social work programs: do not identify any specific focus; Physical Education, Physical Therapy, and Psychology: identify the IS and TS axes; Nutrition and Occupational Therapy: identify the specific axis;	(...) I consider the IS and TS axes essential for this training, as they are points that should be upheld in this educational proposal, along with the desire to incorporate the Bio axis in order to strengthen the common core curriculum. (...) Today I understand what each area can contribute, even though it is not always possible to combine them, but I see what nutrition can do, what physical therapy can do, what physical education can do, and so on with all the areas.	This difference could not be further explored in the interviews due to the predominance of the nutrition course at this stage. In the experience of interprofessionalism, a transition is visible from an education that thinks solely within its own field to one that aims to integrate, but which is still progressing toward understanding other fields and still needs to break down professional stereotypes.

Category	Quantitative Results	Qualitative Results	Integration of Results
Characteristics	67.7% female 65% with degrees in the health field.	“(...) female, enrolled in university between 2004 and 2010, with a single-professional and disciplinary health education.”	In both stages, a higher representation of female faculty members with degrees in the health field was confirmed.
Working within an interprofessional framework	Average teaching experience: 16 years Length of service at Unifesp: 9 years 100% comfortable teaching in this format. 70% find it more difficult to teach in mixed-gender classes. 36.65% perceive clear interdisciplinarity, but with some criticism.	“(...) Unlike traditional training, this model prepares future healthcare professionals to provide care from a holistic perspective; to this end, it is clear that the educational approach is designed to foster collaboration, meaningful learning, and, above all, interaction among different professional fields. For this to be possible, this educational path must be constructed jointly with the students throughout their training. I note that in this work proposal, interdisciplinary dialogue places me in a position of “not knowing,” which can be fruitful but also conflictual. However, this training is a commitment to dialogue and collective construction across different fields, since in this realm nothing is predetermined (...) learning and teaching about care from this perspective offers no ready-made solutions. It is a process of construction in action with people. Working on what is common and fostering this blend requires (...) being open and flexible to learn new knowledge and work in groups with other faculty members, understanding the need to know not only the group of colleagues but also the students’ reality. To enable the development of strategies, a process of institutional pedagogical organization is evident that involves the following axes (...).”	Training prepares for comprehensive care and requires flexibility and collaboration among teachers. Policy and pedagogical strategies are essential to strengthen interdisciplinarity and interprofessionalism.
Teaching work during the pandemic	84% have no experience with distance learning. 94% believe in technology as a pedagogical aid. 88% report an increase in planning hours. 100% were comfortable with the proposed educational model ( ), dropping to 84% during the pandemic.	“(...) there is total consensus on the exceptional nature of the online format in education. I understand that by adopting Special Home Activities (ADE), Unifesp made it possible for its students to continue their studies, but I emphasize that the ADE teaching format is not the same as distance learning, to which I am ideologically opposed in the health field. (...) the positive aspects I highlight regarding online education were the shortening of distances and the ease of participating in meetings. (...) the possibility of participation by faculty and researchers from various locations in Brazil and around the world, with simpler and less costly management of processes, facilitating interdisciplinary exchange. (...) challenge, skepticism, chaos, concern about students’ access conditions, fragility, vulnerability, limitations, losses, little interaction, burnout, fatigue. (...) but one thing is certain: it was the best we could do, but it is not the training that is intended! The difference exists and is clear. Online, discussions seemed more impoverished, and classes increasingly demotivated. The meeting time, though synchronous, was shorter than that of in-person classes. The difficulty in holding meetings was so great that concessions had to be made, such as making interprofessional workgroups more flexible, since the focus shifted solely to emotional support.	The lack of experience with distance education stems from the fact that they are teachers of in-person courses and, furthermore, are ideologically opposed to distance education in the health field. They also make clear the distinction between their actions in the ADE format and the distance education format. Most faculty members stated that they believe technology can assist in their work. The positive aspects of its use were described mainly in relation to administrative matters and as a pedagogical strategy complementary to in-person teaching, such as facilitating meetings and training sessions with faculty from other locations, despite the difficulties imposed by the online format in the context of the pandemic. The decline in the percentage of faculty members who believe that technology can aid interprofessional education is explained by the difficulty of interacting and communicating with students and by the weakening of strategies such as interprofessional group work. The increase in workload was also evident, particularly in planning. The use of online tools enabled a serial mode of work, with successive meetings, which was criticized by faculty for reproducing a more productivity-oriented work style. With regard to interprofessionality and interdisciplinarity, faculty members do not always distinguish between the terms in their discourse. Nevertheless, most consider the relationship between interdisciplinarity and interprofessionality on campus to be evident, although they emphasize the need for advances both methodologically, in implementation strategies, and theoretically, in discussions about these concepts.
Faculty Development	55% have never participated in training on interprofessionality.	“(...) Perception of a lack of initiatives for faculty development. Spaces for formal discussions on interdisciplinarity have been eliminated due to work overload (...).”	The lack of training initiatives for faculty was highlighted, pointing to the need for greater pedagogical support to sustain the educational initiative.