Student perspectives on patient educators as facilitators of interprofessional education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in the active involvement of patients in the education of health professionals. Few have examined the potential role of patient educators in the facilitation of interprofessional education (IPE). AIM: This qualitative program evaluation examined students' perceptions of their learning in a patient-facilitated IPE event. METHODS: One hundred and forty two students from physiotherapy, occupational therapy, medicine, and nursing participated in a 2.5-h session in which they interviewed patient educators living with a variety of chronic illnesses about their experiences. Patient educators participated in a 3-h training session prior to the event. RESULTS: Content analyses of six focus group transcripts (n = 27) and critical incident questionnaires (n = 138) revealed that students felt this was a positive experience, recognized the importance of advocating for their professional role, and valued the interprofessional learning. Students also valued participation from a variety of health professions and felt that IPE should be mandatory for all. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that trained patient educators can effectively facilitate interprofessional interactions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".