Longitudinal interprofessional education (IPE) is vital for developing collaborative practice-ready health professionals, yet its implementation and impact remain underexplored. This scoping review maps the current evidence on longitudinal IPE, examining implementation models, evaluated outcomes, and key facilitators and barriers. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, a systematic search of five databases from 2016 to March 2024 was conducted. Data from 45 included studies were thematically analyzed. Findings reveal that most longitudinal IPE programs are short-term and partially integrated, constrained primarily by meso-level administrative barriers such as scheduling conflicts and time constraints, rather than being truly longitudinal. Based on the interprofessional socialization framework, a significant “measurement gap” exists; evaluations predominantly focus on self-assessed interprofessional competencies and readiness for interprofessional learning, while largely overlooking interprofessional identity development and behavioral readiness for collaborative practice. Furthermore, an “interprofessional socialization paradox” suggests that longitudinal IPE must be intentionally designed to provide high-quality, repeated, and meaningful interprofessional experiences across the entire curriculum. This review also advocates the use of spiral curriculum equipped with authenticity of the learning context, particularly clinical exposure, to support dual identity development. The current longitudinal IPE landscape is fragmented, revealing a chasm between pedagogical goals and implementation reality. Progress requires a deliberate shift towards evidence-based models like spiral curricula grounded in authentic clinical contexts, supported by robust faculty development, the alignment of macro-level accreditation standards, and a research agenda focused on dual identity development and higher-level behavioral outcomes.

Purpose: The development of students’ clinical reasoning skills should be a consideration in the design of instruction and evaluation in medical education. In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several changes in the medical curriculum have been implemented in promoting clinical reasoning. This study aims to explore medical students’ perceptions and experiences with the clinical reasoning curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine their skills development. Methods: The study used a mixed-method design with a concurrent approach. A cross-sectional study was conducted to compare and examine the relationship between the outcomes of the structured oral examination (SOE) and the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI). Then, the qualitative method was used. A focus group discussion using a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions was conducted, then the verbatim transcript was subjected to thematic analysis. Results: There is an increase in SOE and DTI scores between second-year to fourth-year students. The diagnostic thinking domains and SOE are significantly correlated (r=0.302, 0.313, and 0.241 with p<0.05). The three primary themes from the qualitative analysis are perceptions regarding clinical reasoning, clinical reasoning activities, and the learning component. Conclusion Even if students are still studying throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, their clinical reasoning skills can improve. The clinical reasoning and diagnostic thinking skills of medical students increase as the length of the school year increases. Online case-based learning and assessment support the development of clinical reasoning skills. The skills are supported in their development by positive attitudes toward faculty, peers, case type, and prior knowledge.