MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975202186 · doi:10.1080/13561820802210950

Environmental scan of interprofessional collaborative practice initiatives

2008· review· en· W1975202186 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geneviève Côté, Chantal Lauzon, Barbara Kyd-Strickland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interprofessional Care · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersNIH Clinical Center
KeywordsRelevance (law)Inclusion (mineral)Promotion (chess)Interprofessional educationHealth careMedical educationPublic relationsNursingMedicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interprofessional collaboration in health care is high on the policy agenda in Canada. There is evidence that governments, academic institutions, regulatory bodies and health services are developing directions, policies and strategies with collaboration in mind. The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) received governmental funding to implement The Ottawa Hospital Inter-Professional Model of Patient Care.Prior to implementing our model, we conducted an environmental scan to identify initiatives related to interprofessional collaboration in clinical settings. A historical method was used to understand the chronological development of interprofessional collaboration within the health field over the last 10 years. Critical browsing was used to search, select and summarize information found on the web. Fifty two documents were critically reviewed; 27 documents were retained for further analysis and inclusion.The information was analyzed according to three main parameters: source, summary and relevance to our project. The five broad themes identified are: promotion, networking, evidence, resources and linkage between interprofessional education and care. This seems an accurate reflection of the current state of this area; there is active promotion and networking, concrete frameworks and funds but few published results regarding the efficacy of implementing IPC in health care organizations. As experience with the approach accumulates, evidence should grow

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.455 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interprofessional CareSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207