Attitudes of health sciences students towards interprofessional teamwork and education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Relatively little is known about the specific attributes of health professional students which may influence their attitudes towards both interprofessional teamwork and interprofessional education. A survey was distributed to all pre‐licensure health professional students from medicine, nursing, pharmacy and social work programmes at our institution. Respondents were asked to rate their attitudes towards interprofessional healthcare teams and interprofessional education using validated and reliable scales reported in the literature. Information on the respondents’ gender, profession, year of study and prior experience with interprofessional education was also collected. There was no significant difference between attitudes of medicine and nursing students towards interprofessional teamwork; however, both these student groups report significantly less positive attitudes towards interprofessional teams than pharmacy and social work students. Medicine students reported significantly less positive attitudes towards interprofessional education than nursing, pharmacy and social work students. Female students and senior undergraduate students reported significantly more positive attitudes towards interprofessional teamwork and interprofessional education, while students reporting prior experience with interprofessional education reported significantly more positive attitudes towards interprofessional teamwork. Profession, gender and year of study appear to be attributes which were related to more positive attitudes towards both interprofessional teamwork and education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".