Perceptions versus reality: a qualitative study of students’ expectations and experiences of interprofessional education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Interprofessional education (IPE) has been gaining traction in post-secondary institutions. Many schools introduce IPE early to their health professional students, often in the context of a large-scale event in Year 1. This paper presents findings from a study undertaken by a medical student (a classmate of the research participants) and details Year 1 students' initial perceptions of IPE. METHODS: Using an exploratory case study approach, eight focus groups of medical, pharmacy, dental, occupational therapy and social work students were gathered over 2 years (2007 and 2008). All participants had attended an IPE event delivered to nearly 1200 students each year. All data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: The data indicated that, although students were generally positive towards IPE, many expressed dissatisfaction with the way their initial IPE event had been implemented. In particular, students felt that delivering IPE as a large-scale activity limited the amount of meaningful interprofessional interaction that could be achieved. A number of students also expressed concern about the 'artificial' nature of some of their interprofessional activities, which again limited their value. Students went on to offer various suggestions to improve their first exposure to IPE. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce the notion that students value IPE, but offer some new insights into how introductory IPE programming might be organised. Although large-scale activities can provide IPE activities to a wide range of students, which is advantageous from a specifically administrative perspective, students' opinions reveal that this form of IPE involves a number of challenges in their initial engagement with concepts of interprofessional teamwork and collaboration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".