Implementation and evaluation of an interprofessional education initiative for students in the health professions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports the results of a 2‐year pilot study that involved 136 students from various health professions in 13 interprofessional education projects in north‐western Ontario, Canada. The educational model was based on principles of problem‐based, self‐directed, small group learning and combined a clinical placement with a series of interprofessional tutorials and other shared learning experiences. Project evaluation entailed the use of both quantitative and qualitative outcome measures. Student ratings revealed a high level of learner satisfaction. There was no change in student perceptions of interprofessional collaboration between pre‐test and post‐test. A difference was observed between professions, with rehabilitation students having more positive perceptions than medical students. Qualitative analysis of student journals revealed four major themes: (i) new insights into interprofessional roles and the potential for collaboration; (ii) increased understanding of aboriginal culture, spirituality and health beliefs; (iii) new insights into healthcare system issues in rural and remote regions; and (iv) reflections on the benefits and challenges to interprofessional learning. Although barriers to implementing interprofessional education exist, the need to overcome them is critical in order to better prepare health professional students for collaborative practice within a changing healthcare system. Lessons learned and strategies for success are discussed.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".