Selecting an interprofessional education model for a tertiary health care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization describes interprofessional education (IPE) and collaboration as necessary components of all health professionals' education - in curriculum and in practice. However, no standard framework exists to guide healthcare settings in developing or selecting an IPE model that meets the learning needs of licensed practitioners in practice and that suits the unique needs of their setting. Initially, a broad review of the grey literature (organizational websites, government documents and published books) and healthcare databases was undertaken for existing IPE models. Subsequently, database searches of published papers using Scopus, Scholars Portal and Medline was undertaken. Through this search process five IPE models were identified in the literature. This paper attempts to: briefly outline the five different models of IPE that are presently offered in the literature; and illustrate how a healthcare setting can select the IPE model within their context using Reeves' seven key trends in developing IPE. In presenting these results, the paper contributes to the interprofessional literature by offering an overview of possible IPE models that can be used to inform the implementation or modification of interprofessional practices in a tertiary healthcare setting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".