Mapping the interprofessional education landscape for students on rural clinical placements: an integrative literature review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional collaboration and effective teamwork are core to optimising rural health outcomes; however, little is known about the opportunities available for interprofessional education (IPE) in rural clinical learning environments. This integrative literature review addresses this deficit by identifying, analysing and synthesising the research available about the nature of and potential for IPE provided to undergraduate students undertaking rural placements, the settings and disciplines involved and the outcomes achieved. METHODS: An integrative review method was adopted to capture the breadth of evidence available about IPE in the rural context. This integrative review is based on a search of nine electronic databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Search terms were adapted to suit those used by different disciplines and each database and included key words related to IPE, rurality, undergraduate students and clinical placement. The inclusion criteria included primary research and reports of IPE in rural settings, peer reviewed, and published in English between 2000 and mid-2016. RESULTS: This review integrates the results of 27 primary research studies undertaken in seven countries: Australia, Canada, USA, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Africa and Tanzania. Despite geographical, cultural and health system differences, all of the studies reviewed were concerned with developing collaborative, interprofessional practice-ready graduates and adopted a similar mix of research methods. Overall, the 27 studies involved more than 3800 students (range 3-1360) from 36 disciplinary areas, including some not commonly associated with interprofessional education, such as theology. Interprofessional education was provided in a combination of university and rural placement settings including hospitals, community health services and other rural venues. The education activities most frequently utilised were seminars, tutorial discussion groups (n=21, 84%), case presentations (n=11, 44%) and community projects (n=11, 44%) augmented by preliminary orientation and ongoing interaction with clinicians during placement. The studies reviewed demonstrate that rural clinical learning environments provide rich and varied IPE opportunities for students that increase their interprofessional understanding, professional respect for other roles, and awareness of the collaborative and interprofessional nature of rural practice. CONCLUSION: This review addresses the lack of attention given to understanding IPE in the rural context, provides Australian and international evidence that initiatives are being offered to diverse student groups undertaking placements in rural settings and proposes a research agenda to develop a relevant framework to support rural IPE. Rural clinical learning environments afford a rich resource whereby health professionals can conceptualise IPE creatively and holistically to construct transformative learning experiences for students. This review develops a case for supporting the development, trialling, evaluation and translation of IPE initiatives that harness the opportunities afforded by rural placements. Further research is required to examine the ways to optimise IPE opportunities in the rural clinical context, including the potential for simulation-based activities, the challenges to achieving sustainable programs, and to evaluate the impact of interprofessional education on collaboration and health outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,028 | 0,026 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».