Sustainability of Interprofessional Education: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional education (IPE) is an approach that can improve health care quality, contribute to the qualification of health care professionals, and train undergraduate students. Although this strategy has made significant progress in the last decade, integration, sustainability, and institutional growth are still priorities worldwide. Thus, maintaining strategies is essential for their full development and evolution. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify discussions about the sustainability of IPE and map its actions or strategies (or both). METHODS: The scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. This scoping review protocol follows the JBI Reviewers' Manual, with 6 stages: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; data extraction and coding; analysis and interpretation of results; and consultation with stakeholders. Two independent and blind reviewers will evaluate and select studies available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish based on the eligibility criteria. Searches will be conducted on LILACS, Embase, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, ERIC, Web of Science, CINAHL, Google Scholar databases; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. The main research question is as follows: What have been the sustainability strategies for IPE actions? This scoping review will incorporate studies (empirical or theoretical-reflective) that address strategies or actions (or both) for IPE sustainability. They must present a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approach and be available in full text. Data on strategies or actions for IPE sustainability will be extracted and inserted into a spreadsheet for analysis. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative analysis will identify meanings and patterns through thematic analysis. Thus, the aim is to present the compiled findings in tables and charts. RESULTS: The database search was conducted on March 22, 2024. In April and May 2024, duplicate studies were excluded. From July to November 2024, study selection will be carried out. In December 2024, data extraction and tabulation will take place, as well as consultation with stakeholders. The aim is to publish the results in scientific journals in January 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol will guide this scoping review to identify discussions on the sustainability of IPE and map its actions or strategies (or both); summarize the definitions and institutions that develop or promote IPE; and present the main recommendations for the area under study. Additionally, possible research gaps can be identified to guide future studies. This review will shed light on existing knowledge gaps and the current state of research, which could provide support for future research, programs, and policy responses to foster collaboration and interprofessional practice and, consequently, improve the quality of user care. This information will be useful in supporting decision-making by government officials, managers, teachers, facilitators, and students in the implementation, maintenance, and development of IPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 5VNJS; https://osf.io/5vnjs/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60763.
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 | 0,136 | 0,147 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,101 | 0,021 |
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 ».