Learning by Doing: Enhancing Interprofessional Students’ Awareness of Informed Shared Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Based on a recently developed medical framework for informed shared decision-making (ISDM), three health and human service programs at the University of British Columbia conducted a combined two-stage project to: (1) develop an interprofessional ISDM-training workshop and (2) test its impact in field-placement clerkships for students in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Physical Therapy, and Occupational Therapy. Method: Sixteen senior year students from the participating disciplines were recruited to: (1) participate in a workshop to learn about ISDM, (2) observe multiple preceptor/patient encounters during their clerkships (3) record their observations in a field notebook, and (4) participate in a follow-up workshop to debrief their experiences and offer feedback. Results: Overall, students observed 145 encounters and coded their ability to detect the presence or absence of eight decision-making competencies in each encounter. Across the disciplines, students were more certain of some competencies (developing partnerships, negotiating decisions) than others (patient’s preferences for information, patient’s role in decision-making). Irrespective of competency, students in Physical Therapy were more hesitant to commit to certainty than other students. Analysis of student uncertainties, combined with training session debriefings provided guidelines for improving the ISDM training workshop and offered systematic instructional insights for working with students in these different disciplines.Conclusions: Despite their uncertainties, the majority of students reported that participation in the project provided them with a better understanding of ISDM and influenced the ways they would approach future communication with patients in their own practices to facilitate ISDM.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".