A medical student's perspective of participation in an interprofessional education placement: An autoethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional education (IPE) has emerged as a critical pedagogy for promoting interprofessional collaboration (IPC) within healthcare. However, the literature includes few reports of students' perspectives on IPE experiences. Understanding students' experiences is critical, as they are the crux of IPE's culture change agenda. This paper presents an autoethnographic account of my experiences as a medical student participating in an IPE placement within a Canadian academic hospital. During the five-week placement, I collected data using participant observation and reflective journaling on all placement experiences. I expanded my notes using the emotional recall technique and conducted thematic analysis. Using a series of narrative vignettes, this paper explores the relationships between my personal experience and the cultural and educational issues underpinning IPE. The first vignette explores the relationship between students' patient access and our status in tutorial discussion. The second vignette considers the impact of shadowing on my appreciation of another professional's practice. The last vignette portrays my experience learning about the complex politics that shape IPC. The conclusion suggests that the IPE placements incorporate reflexive activities (i.e., journaling and interviewing) to enhance the students' appreciation and understanding of roles, responsibilities and professional perspectives, and to promote critical thinking and professional growth.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".