Differences in Pre-licensure Interprofessional Learning: Classroom Versus Practice Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractBackground: Health Canada and Cochrane reviews indicate a need for rigorous outcome testing following interprofessional learning, particularly in practice settings. This led to research questioning whether knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, values, and skills regarding collaborative patient care improve after interprofessional learning in classroom and practice settings based on the degree of exposure to interprofessional learning compared to a control group.Methods and Findings: Pre-licensure students from seven health-profession programs were assigned to three groups: Control (no intervention), Education (classroom-based interprofessional learning), and Full-Participant (classroom-based and practice-based interprofessional learning). They were later surveyed to assess outcomes. Immersion at an interprofessional practice setting had a greater impact on scores than classroom-based interprofessional education. Both interventions significantly improved attitudes, perceptions, knowledge, and skills related to interprofessional collaboration. Only immersion improved the perceived importance of sharing leadership. Changes after the education intervention persisted at five-month follow-up.Conclusions: Interprofessional learning in classroom and practice settings positively impacted participants' knowledge, attitudes, perceptions and values, and skills regarding interprofessional teamwork. Use of a longitudinal study with a control group provided evidence that pre-licensure interprofessional learning would increase awareness of the need to collaborate. Findings encourage longerterm study of how interprofessional learning in various settings could improve how future practitioners approach patient care.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".