MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969604638 · doi:10.3109/13561820.2011.596455

Interprofessional education about patient decision support in specialty care

2011· article· en· W1969604638 on OpenAlexaff
Mary C. Politi, Arwen H. Pieterse, Tracy Truant, Cornelia M. Borkhoff, Vikram Jha, Laura Kuhl, Jennifer Nicolai, Claudia Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interprofessional Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsSpecialtyInterprofessional educationHealth careNursingMedicineMedical educationPsychologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specialty care involves services provided by health professionals who focus on treating diseases affecting one body system. In contrast to primary care - aimed at providing continuous, comprehensive care - specialty care often involves intermittent episodes of care focused around specific medical conditions. In addition, it typically includes multiple providers who have unique areas of expertise that are important in supporting patients' care. Interprofessional care involves multiple professionals from different disciplines collaborating to provide an integrated approach to patient care. For patients to experience continuity of care across interprofessional providers, providers need to communicate and maintain a shared sense of responsibility to their patients. In this article, we describe challenges inherent in providing interprofessional patient decision support in specialty care. We propose ways for providers to engage in interprofessional decision support and discuss promising approaches to teaching an interprofessional decision support to specialty care providers. Additional evaluation and empirical research are required before further recommendations can be made about education for interprofessional decision support in specialty care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interprofessional CareSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207