Exploring Effects of Interprofessional Education on Undergraduate Students Behaviour: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One way to improve the quality of palliative care for elderly patients is to use an interprofessional team approach, which may be encouraged through interprofessional education (IPE). However, the effectiveness of IPE interventions has yet to be proven. We therefore designed a randomized controlled trial using a simulated practice setting to measure the effects of an IPE intervention on medical students’ clinical behaviour.Methods: Undergraduate nursing (N = 20) and medical (N = 20) students were evenly assigned to either an intervention or a control group. Students in the intervention group received interprofessional curriculum (12 teaching units), and the control group was given written material containing the content of the IPE curriculum. Using a pre-post design, clinical behaviour of matched pairs of nursing and medical students was analyzed for qualitative (care objectives) and quantitative aspects of communication (initiation, interruptions, speaking time, and exchanged information items). Statistical analyses included chi-square, Fisher’s exact, and t-tests, where appropriate.Results: Care objective scores improved in both groups (categories N = 6, p-range = intervention group: .001–.630; control group: .001–.888). Interruptions and speaking time showed no change between or within groups, while the number of nursing student-initiated contacts increased (p = .0007). The number of information items exchanged increased significantly in both the intervention group (Pre: M = 9.65, SD = 1.79; Post: M = 12.35, SD = 1.87; p = .001) and the control group (Pre: M = 8.75, SD = 2.59; Post: M = 11.75, SD = 2.22; p = .001).Conclusions:We found a moderate effect of IPE on a change in interprofessionalcommunication style.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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".