Influencing Student Beliefs about Poverty and Health through Interprofessional Community-Based Educational Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pre-licensure students from medicine, physical therapy, kinesiology, nursing, and social work participated in a population health project at the University of Saskatchewan. We assessed the effect of this interactive, interprofessional, community-based educational experience on students’ attitudes and beliefs about poverty and health.Methods and Findings: Participants (N = 119) completed two measures at the beginning and end of the five-week project: the 37-item Attitudes toward Poverty Scale (APS) and the 8-item Beliefs about the Relationship between Poverty and Health (BRPH). APS scores showed a modest significant increase toward more positive attitudes over time (F(1, 110) = 7.97, p < .01). On the BRPH, participants agreed significantly less at Week 5 with two behavioral explanations (F(1, 114) = 5.07, p < .05; F(1, 114) = 11.00, p < .01) and one structural explanation (F(1, 112) = 11.09, p < .01) about relationships between poverty and health. There was some evidence that face-to-face interactions with community members had more impact than a simulation exercise. Students gave positive evaluations of the interprofessional format of the project. Attrition effects may limit the interpretation of these results.Conclusions: Results demonstrate that brief interprofessional community-based learning experiences can positively influence students’ attitudes and beliefs about the relationship between poverty and health.
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 | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| 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".