Training in interprofessional collaboration: pedagogic innovation in family medicine units.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM ADDRESSED: A number of agencies that accredit university health sciences programs recently added standards for the acquisition of knowledge and skills with respect to interprofessional collaboration. Within primary care settings there are no practical training programs that allow students from different disciplines to develop competencies in this area. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAM: The training program was developed within family medicine units affiliated with Université Laval in Quebec for family medicine residents and trainees from various disciplines to develop competencies in patient-centred, interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Based on adult learning theories, the program was divided into 3 phases--preparing family medicine unit professionals, training preceptors, and training the residents and trainees. The program's pedagogic strategies allowed participants to learn with, from, and about one another while preparing them to engage in contemporary primary care practices. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used to evaluate the implementation process and the immediate results of the training program. CONCLUSION: The training program had a positive effect on both the clinical settings and the students. Preparation of clinical settings is an important issue that must be considered when planning practical interprofessional training.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".