Planning for interprofessional change in primary health care: exploring the use of the Interprofessional Resource Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Resources to support change are needed for solo practitioners who are transitioning to family health teams (FHTs) which involve multiple health disciplines working together to provide team-based care. OBJECTIVE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT WAS: (1) to explore the use of an online resource, the Interprofessional Resource Centre (IRC), when planning for interprofessional change and; (2) to explore the experience of planning interprofessional change. DESIGN AND SETTING: Six FHTs organized under the structure of one Local Health Integrated Network (LHIN) in Ontario, Canada. INTERVENTION: Participants in six FHTs were directed to the IRC to support planning interprofessional change. In addition, two of the six FHTs participated in pilot site meetings with investigators where they received in-person support to apply the information from the IRC to an interprofessional activity. RESULTS: Pilot site participants reported the IRC was useful for planning, but they cited lack of time to use it as a key barrier. When planning for interprofessional change, providers experienced challenges with physician buy-in and team dynamics. As a strategy for change, providers would like to learn from other FHTs who have experienced success with interprofessional change; at the LHIN level, they saw a need for more educational opportunities. Participation was found to be low among those only receiving online support. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Based on the results of the study, it appears that online resource centers do have some value in knowledge translation when combined with in-person meetings. In exploring the planning of interprofessional change in primary health care teams, it was found that buy-in with physicians is a key challenge.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".