Attributes of Effective Interprofessional Placement Facilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The quality of facilitation is an important influence on the efficacy of interprofessional education (IPE) delivery. The research objective was to increase understanding of the attributes of effective facilitation of students during external IPE placements in primary care situations.Methods and Findings: A thematic analysis of the experiences of academics, students, and placement-site staff at three placement sites was employed to explore participants’ perceptions of the attributes of effective IPE facilitators. These attributes included experience in an interprofessional context, together with an understanding of the specific clinical and assessment requirements of different disciplines. Facilitators also needed empathy with respect to the requirements of the external IPE placement sites and the ability to liaise between student and site needs.Conclusions: Models of IPE placement facilitation were most effective when, while following general principles, facilitators tailored them specifically for the individual situations of the placement sites and the learning requirements of particular groups of students. The most rewarding IPE learning experiences occurred when IPE facilitators provided sufficient clinical opportunities for students to work collaboratively with individual clients, provided the students perceived that their participation was relevant to their own discipline.
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 | 0.013 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".