Confident, Credible but Lonely – Outcomes Following Postgraduate Interprofessional Education in Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interprofessional education aims to enhance health service delivery. This study examined whether health professionals changed their clinical practice after completing a postgraduate interprofessional qualification in rehabilitation. Methods & Findings: All graduates of postgraduate qualifications in rehabilitation at University of Otago were invited to complete a questionnaire. Thirteen participants were purposively selected for further in-depth interviews. Questionnaire data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Qualitative responses from questionnaires and interview transcripts were explored using thematic analysis. The survey response rate was 24% (77/315 students). Postgraduate study was reported to have had a positive impact on professional attitudes and commitment to learning (81%), to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration (79%), and to promote change in service delivery (40%). Themes identified from questionnaire responses were: 1) increased confidence, 2) enhanced credibility, and 3) widened view of rehabilitation. Analysis of the interviews identified three contrasting themes: 1) isolation hampers momentum, 2) managers and clinical leaders do not value postgraduate qualifications, 3) implementing change required postgraduate study plus persistence. Conclusions: Educators and employers of health professionals should be aware of the benefits of postgraduate interprofessional education for health professionals and healthcare delivery. Employers should recognize and value these benefits and support health professionals to apply new skills in their clinical practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".