Interprofessional Education in Anatomy: Using Q Methodology to Determine Student Perceptions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Interprofessional education (IPE) is critical for preparing healthcare students for the collaborative components of their future careers. Anatomic dissection is an ideal IPE activity because all healthcare professionals require anatomy training and dissection demands extensive student interaction in a sensitive environment. The purpose of this study was to determine which aspects healthcare students perceived to contribute to the development of their (individual) interprofessional skillset within the context of McMaster University's 10‐week IPE gross anatomy dissection course. We used Q‐methodology to identify the students' common viewpoints regarding the course. A total of 26 students from the Medical, Nursing, Midwifery, Physician Assistants, Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy programs participated in this study. Students were asked to sort a Q‐sample of 43 statements based on their viewpoints regarding the IPE dissection course. The 43 statements were developed from interviews with students who had previously completed the course. Using the centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation, three salient factors (groups) emerged. The groups were named based on distinguishing statements as follows: 1) Anatomy IPE Enthusiasts; 2) Practical IPE Advocates; 3) Skeptical IPE Anatomists. The Anatomy IPE Enthusiasts believed that students from different disciplines brought unique anatomical knowledge and each group member guided others through difficult material. The Practical IPE Advocates expressed that they would be much stronger advocates for interprofessional teams in the future as a result of taking the course. The Skeptical IPE Anatomists strongly disagree that learning with students from different disciplines helped them gain a solid understanding of their roles in the context of other healthcare professionals, and felt that there was not much benefit from the IPE program compared to other non‐interdisciplinary programs. It is critical to understand student perceptions of IPE programs in order to best prepare these students for their future collaborative careers. These findings can help the course developers make further adjustments in the course structure, content and delivery to address some of the issues highlighted by the students, and to further emphasize the topics that were well‐received by the students. Finally, we hope that these results will be helpful to other interprofessional educators, especially those whose program has an anatomy framework.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».