Understanding interprofessional relationships by the use of contact theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance and necessity of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) present challenges for educators as they determine how best to achieve IPC through interprofessional education (IPE). Simulation-based teaching has been shown to enhance students' understanding of professional roles and promote positive attitudes toward team members; yet, empirical evidence providing direction on the conditions necessary to promote these positive outcomes is lacking. This study used a quasi-experimental design with a pre-/post-test to examine changes in undergraduate healthcare students' perceptions and attitudes toward IPC following their participation in an interprofessional simulation program. Allport's (1954) intergroup contact theory was used to help understand the nature of this IPE workshop and its reported outcomes. Participants included students in the final year of their respective programs (n = 84) such as pharmacy technician, paramedic, nursing and occupational therapy assistant/physical therapy assistant programs. These students were engaged in simulation exercises with interactive contact opportunities. Using the interdisciplinary education perceptions scale, statistically significant increases in positive attitudes in three of four sub-scales were found. An analysis of the structure and format of the workshop suggests that this IPE initiative fulfilled the key conditions suggested by intergroup contact theory. Attention to the key conditions provided by Allport's theory in the context of successful intergroup relationships may help provide direction for educators interested in planning IPE initiatives with student groups enrolled in various health programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".