Attitude of Basic Science Medical Students Toward Interprofessional Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and interprofessional education (IPE) are increasingly emphasized in the education of health professions. Xavier University School of Medicine, a Caribbean medical school admits students from the United States, Canada, and other countries to the undergraduate medical course. The present study was carried out to obtain information about the attitude toward IPC among basic science medical students and note differences, if any, among different subgroups. METHODS: The study was conducted among first to fifth semester students during July 2015 using the previously validated Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Collaboration (JeffSATIC). Gender, age, semester, and nationality were noted. Participants' agreement with a set of 20 statements was studied. Mean total scores, working relationship, and accountability scores were calculated and compared among different subgroups of respondents (p<0.05). RESULTS: Sixty-seven of the 71 students (94.4%) participated. Cronbach's alpha value of the questionnaire was 0.827, indicating good internal consistency. The mean total score was 104.48 (maximum score 140) while the working relationship and accountability scores were 63.51 (maximum score 84) and 40.97 (maximum score 56), respectively. Total scores were significantly higher among third-semester students and students of Canadian nationality. Working relationship and accountability scores were higher among first and third-semester students. CONCLUSION: The total working relationship and accountability scores were lower compared to those obtained in a previous study. Opportunities for IPE and IPC during the basic science years should be strengthened. Longitudinal studies in the institution may be helpful. Similar studies in other Caribbean medical schools are required.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".