The Effects of an Anatomy Near‐Peer Learning Activity on Interprofessional Stereotypes: A Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Beyond their clinical rotations, healthcare students have few opportunities to interact with students in other domains of the health field. Furthermore, stereotypes exist within and between healthcare disciplines that can negatively impact interprofessional communication and collaboration in the clinical setting. While the anatomical sciences remain a common field of study for both nursing and medical disciplines, strategies that utilize the anatomy laboratory as a setting to minimize negative interprofessional attitudes have yet to be well characterized. Driven by a need to better understand healthcare trainees' interprofessional stereotypes, and the potential of the anatomy lab as a common teaching and learning environment, this study aims to assess the effects of an anatomy interprofessional near‐peer learning activity (AIP‐NPLA) on medical and nursing students' interprofessional stereotypes at McGill University. We employed a convergent parallel mixed methods study design to obtain a complete understanding of participating students' AIP‐NPLA experiences, where each healthcare trainee group had the opportunity to take on the role of both tutor and tutee. Using the Attitudes to Health Professionals Questionnaire (AHPQ), we quantitatively assessed participating students' perceived attitudes and stereotypes on both their own and their counterpart's profession, before and after the AIP‐NPLA. Using semi‐structured focus groups, we qualitatively explored participating students' experiences and perceptions of their interprofessional stereotypes after the AIP‐NPLA. Quantitative results demonstrated minimal changes in the pre‐ and post‐AIP‐NPLA responses from the medical students, which may be attributable to lower medical student completion. However, data from the nursing students demonstrated significant changes in ten of the twenty AHPQ attributes with respect to their perceived stereotypes of the medical profession. These changes included an increased regard for the medical profession's empathy, approachability and valuing team‐work. Furthermore, nursing student responses changed significantly for three of the twenty attributes when evaluating their own profession. Qualitative results also spoke to suggest a breakdown of negative stereotypes, an increased understanding of inter‐ and intra‐professional roles in a team, and the importance of interprofessional collaboration and mutual learning for their future careers. Taken together, these results demonstrate that by establishing a relevant setting for shared education, stereotypes among healthcare trainees may be positively restructured, allowing for effective and collaborative care to predominate in the current and future clinical setting. Support or Funding Information Jonathan Campbell Meakins and Family Memorial Fellowship This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 | 0,016 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 ».