Community service learning: an effective vehicle for interprofessional education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Health professions students have limited exposure to each other during education and training, yet there are many expectations for interaction in the workplace as part of functioning health care teams. We reasoned that providing students an opportunity to work together in a service learning project under faculty supervision would enhance student knowledge and appreciation of each other’s disciplines and give them a better understanding of working together. Methods and Findings Teams of students from four disciplines (medicine, nursing, dentistry, dental hygiene) worked as volunteers with a unique population of transitional homeless families to develop individualized health and wellness plans. Pre- and post-participation surveys were used to measure changes in student perceptions of working in multi-disciplinary teams, and focus groups were used to identify strengths and weaknesses of the project and future directions. Conclusions Results showed positive predispositions to working with each other which were further enhanced by collaborative, interprofessional experience. Students’ confidence in working together in multidisciplinary teams and understanding of the training and expertise of other professions increased after participation and changes were statistically significant. Interprofessional education and community service-based learning may be a powerful combination for demonstrating the value of clinical teamwork to health professions students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".