Interprofessional Education in Mental Health: Implications for Music therapy/Formation Interprofessionnelle En Santé Mentale : Conséquences Pour la Musicothérapie
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Health professionals, including music therapists, have historically studied and trained solely within the context and culture of their specific field. Interaction with other professions either in school or during placements has not traditionally been a required component of programs. While there have been calls for interaction in the past, its implementation has been complicated by organizational, systemic, and field-specific barriers (Copley, Allison, Hill, Moran, Tait & Day, 2007; Priest, Roberts, Dent, Blincoe, Lawton & Armstrong, 2008]. Recent changes in healthcare service delivery are advancing the role of education, by promoting teamwork training to address quality challenges in healthcare systems (Barr, Koppel, Reeves, Hammick & Freeth, 2005; Barrett, Curran, Glynn, Godwin, 2007; Meads & Ashcroft, 2005]. For example, the United Kingdom (UK) Department of Health has repeatedly called for better staff collaboration in health and social settings (Reeves, 2001). In Canada, reports such as the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation Synthesis on Interprofessional Collaboration and Quality Primary Healthcare (Barret, Curran, Glynn & Godwin, 2007), the Health Council of Canada's Inaugural Report (2005), the Kirby Report (2002), and the Romanow Report (2002) stress the need for greater collaboration involving teams of health providers.For the past two decades, collaboration has been promoted and endorsed to improve mental health service delivery in many nations, including the UK (Priest, Roberts, Dent, Blincoe, Lawton & Armstrong, 2008) and Canada (Barrett et al., 2007; Kates, 2002). With increased expectations of evidence- and outcome-based funding structures, the current move toward governmental regulation of music therapy in Canada, and the number of music therapists who identify themselves as mental health workers, the time has come to foster greater collaboration between music therapy and other mental health professions. To that end, should play a significant role in music therapy to better prepare for effective teamwork in clinical practice, and to work toward improving client outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to review the evidence of effectiveness in in mental health and to build the argument for implementing in pre-licensure music therapy education.Interprofessional Education and CollaborationLanguageAs stated by Barr et al. (2005), interprofessional is bedevilled by terminological inexactitude (p. xvii). The competing uses of 'interprofessional', 'multiprofessional', 'interdisciplinary', 'multidisciplinary', 'collaborative' and 'teamwork' has added a layer of complexity to accurately depicting, promoting and understanding education. In this paper, the term interprofessional education refers to the practice defined by the Centre for Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) as those occasions when members (or students) of two or more professions learn with, from and about one another to improve collaboration and the quality of care (Hammick, Freeth, Koppel, Reeves & Barr, 2007, p. 735).Interprofessional is differentiated from collaboration and collaborative practice in that it is:designed to promote the active participation of each discipline in patient care. It enhances patient- and familycentred goals and values, provides mechanisms for continuous communication among caregivers, optimizes staff participation in clinical decision making within and across disciplines and fosters respect for disciplinary contributions of all professions (Health Canada, 2003).To further clarify the distinction between and collaborative practice, one can view as improving learner outcomes, and collaborative practice as improving patient outcomes (D'amour & Oandasan, 2005). …
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 | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 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 ».