The Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education (IPODE) project: perceived outcomes of an approach to healthcare professional education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education (IPODE) project was designed as an approach to the problems of feasibility and accessibility in specialty health professional education, in this case, psychosocial oncology (PSO). In this article, we report the evaluation findings from the first three years of the project in relation to one IPODE course, which was offered as a graduate level university elective in nine Canadian universities and as a continuing education (CE) option to health professionals between January 2008 and May 2010. The evaluation included a pre and post questionnaire that explored how an interprofessional (IP), web-based, PSO course influenced participants' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about IP, person-centered PSO care. It also examined what attributes of a web-based platform were most effective in delivering an IP PSO course. The study yielded two key findings. First, web-based learning in a pan-Canadian and cross-university collaboration is a viable alternative to providing specialty education and significantly improves knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about IP, person-centered PSO care. Second, a web-based platform with real-time seminars, discussion boards and multiple audio visual resources that privilege first person illness narratives were important elements in expanding knowledge and shifting attitudes about IP practice and person-centered care in regards to PSO. In their evaluation, course participants highlighted a variety of ways in which the course expanded their vision about what constitutes an IP team and increased their confidence in interacting with healthcare professionals from professions other than their own.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".