Key elements of interprofessional education. Part 2: Factors, processes and outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the second paper of this two part series on Key Elements of Interprofessional Education (IPE), we highlight factors for success in IPE based on a systematic literature review conducted for Health Canada in its "Interprofessional Education for Patient Centred Practice" (IECPCP) initiative in Canada (Oandasan et al., 2004). The paper initially discusses micro (individual level) meso (institutional/organizational level) and macro (socio-cultural and political level) factors that can influence the success of an IPE initiative. The discussion provides the infrastructure for the introduction of a proposed framework for educators to utilize in the planning and implementation of an IPE program to enhance a learner's opportunity to become a collaborative practitioner. The paper also discusses key issues related to the evaluation of IPE and its varied outcomes. Lastly, it gives the reader suggestions of outcome measurements that can be used within the proposed IPE framework.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it