Academic administrators' attitudes towards interprofessional education in Canadian schools of health professional education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional education is an approach to educating and training students and practitioners from different health professions to work in a collaborative manner in providing client and/or patient-centred care. The introduction and successful implementation of this educational approach is dependent on a variety of factors, including the attitudes of students, faculty, senior academic administrators (e.g., deans and directors) and practitioners. The purpose of this study was to examine attitudes towards interprofessional teamwork and interprofessional education amongst academic administrators of post-secondary health professional education programs in Canada. A web-based questionnaire in English and French was distributed via e-mail messaging during January 2004 to academic administrators in Canada representing medicine, nursing, pharmacy, social work, occupational therapy and physiotherapy post-secondary educational programs. Responses were sought on attitudes towards interprofessional teamwork and interprofessional education, as well as opinions regarding barriers to interprofessional education and subject areas that lend themselves to interprofessional education. In general, academic administrators responding to the survey hold overall positive attitudes towards interprofessional teamwork and interprofessional education practices, and the results indicate there were no significant differences between professions in relation to these attitudinal perspectives. The main barriers to interprofessional education were problems with scheduling/calendar, rigid curriculum, turf battles and lack of perceived value. The main pre-clinical subject areas which respondents believed would lend themselves to interprofessional education included community health/prevention, ethics, communications, critical appraisal, and epidemiology. The results of this study suggest that a favourable perception of both interprofessional teamwork and interprofessional education exists amongst academic administrators of Canadian health professional education programs. If this is the case, the post-secondary system in Canada is primed for the introduction of interprofessional education initiatives which support the development of client and patient-centred collaborative practice competencies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".