Paid co-op models for health professional programs: A scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Clinical learning is key for health professional students. As we face, worldwide, an aging healthcare workforce and widespread staff shortages, the urgency to adopt innovative and scalable models of clinical education has never been greater. These new approaches are essential not only to address the current capacity challenges but also to ensure the sustainability and quality of care, particularly as healthcare needs become more complex and patient populations continue to grow. Co-operative education (co-op) programs provide students with the opportunity to gain practical experiences in a clinical setting as part of their formal education while receiving some financial remuneration. Yet, little is known about the most effective ways to design, implement and evaluate these programs to best benefit patients, students, educational, and healthcare organizations. Our goal was to explore the available literature on paid co-op education models for students in health professional programs.Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the six stages of the Arskey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework and the PRISMA-ScR reporting format. This included defining the research question, developing the search strategy, conducting a two-step screening process, and performing data extraction and analysis of the included studies.Results: A total of 30 articles were included. Studies were from the United States (n = 14), the United Kingdom (n = 8), Canada (n = 4), Ireland (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 1) and Iran (n = 1). Most studies aimed to describe or evaluate the paid co-op programs (n = 12), or aimed to explore the experience of students, preceptors or faculty members who participated in a co-op program (n = 10). The studies included a wide range of healthcare professionals, including nursing (n = 21), pharmacy (n = 3), midwifery (n = 1), medicine (n = 1), occupational therapy (n = 1), audiology (n = 1), social work (n = 1), and a combination of occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech-language pathology (n = 1).Conclusions: The results of this scoping review contributed to the existing literature on paid co-op education programs for students in health professional programs. We explored the current state of these programs, the benefits and the challenges of these programs, and the potential directions for future planning, implementation, and research in this area. Health care leaders, program directors, clinical educators, and curriculum developers will be able to use these findings to inform future co-op programs that fosters mutual benefits for students, educational, and healthcare organizations.
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 | 0,030 | 0,116 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,026 | 0,030 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».