Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: An emerging concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a new concept and a frame of reference that should permit the development of a better understanding of a phenomenon that is the development of a cohesive and integrated health care practice among professionals in response to clients' needs. The concept is named "interprofessionality" and aims to draw a clear distinction with another concept, that of interdisciplinarity. The utilization of the concept of interdisciplinarity, which originally concerns the development of integrated knowledge in response to fragmented disciplinary knowledge, has caused some confusion. We need a concept that will specifically concern the development of a cohesive practice among different professionals from the same organization or from different organizations and the factors influencing it. There is no concept that focuses clearly on this field. Interprofessionality concerns the processes and determinants that influence interprofessional education initiatives as well as determinants and processes inherent to interprofessional collaboration. Interprofessionality also involves analysis of the linkages between these two spheres of activity. An attempt to bridge the gap between interprofessional education and interprofessional practice is long overdue; the two fields of inquiry need a common basis for analysis. To this end, we propose a frame of reference, an interprofessional education for collaborative patient-centred practice framework. The framework establishes linkages between the determinants and processes of collaboration at several levels, including links among learners, teachers and professionals (micro level), links at the organizational level between teaching and health organizations (meso level) and links among systems such as political, socio-economic and cultural systems (macro level). Research must play a key role in the development of interprofessionality in order to document these linkages and the results of initiatives as they are proposed and implemented. We also believe that interprofessionality will not be pursued without the requisite political will.
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".