Facilitating and evaluating a student‐led seminar series on global health issues as an opportunity for interprofessional learning for health science students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pre‐licensure interprofessional education (IPE) is often cited as an important foundation in promoting collaboration between healthcare professionals. Due to administrative and attitudinal challenges that can arise in delivering IPE, pre‐licensure healthcare students are rarely given the opportunity to learn together. As a result of the lack of opportunity in the formal curricula, an interprofessional student group developed and coordinated a 10‐week, extracurricular seminar series on global health for medicine, nursing and occupational and physical therapy students at a Canadian university in 2006. This seminar series featured multi‐disciplinary experts in global health and integrated interprofessional problem‐based learning. Using qualitative methods, including focus groups, student reflections and pre‐ and post‐course surveys, specific areas were evaluated as follows: participants’ attitudes towards IPE; the appropriateness of using global health as a vehicle for IPE; and the perceived obstacles and benefits of the IPE experience provided by this seminar series. The evaluation findings highlight the unique benefits and drawbacks of using global health as a vehicle for IPE, the value of sharing a common interest between professions in delivering IPE, perceived practice implications resulting from this seminar series and recommendations in delivering such an initiative. Also, while providing many of the same benefits in the promotion of collaboration between professions as recognized in formal IPE, this student‐run, extracurricular model was shown to limit administrative obstacles, facilitate self‐directed learning and integrate a diverse population of students. Overall, the model and content described was shown to serve as a beneficial and unique means of delivering IPE.
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 | 0.044 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".