Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students: A literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a pressing need to redesign health professions education and integrate an interprofessional and systems approach into training. At the core of interprofessional education (IPE) are creating training synergies across healthcare professions and equipping learners with the collaborative skills required for today's complex healthcare environment. Educators are increasingly experimenting with new IPE models, but best practices for translating IPE into interprofessional practice and team-based care are not well defined. Our study explores current IPE models to identify emerging trends in strategies reported in published studies. We report key characteristics of 83 studies that report IPE activities between 2005 and 2010, including those utilizing qualitative, quantitative and mixed method research approaches. We found a wide array of IPE models and educational components. Although most studies reported outcomes in student learning about professional roles, team communication and general satisfaction with IPE activities, our review identified inconsistencies and shortcomings in how IPE activities are conceptualized, implemented, assessed and reported. Clearer specifications of minimal reporting requirements are useful for developing and testing IPE models that can inform and facilitate successful translation of IPE best practices into academic and clinical practice arenas.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 it