Taking the long view: Exploring the development of interprofessional education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional education (IPE) in health and social care has been well documented regarding student outcomes. Less has been written from the perspective of those who actually developed IPE. This study explores IPE within the context of a university partnership working with service providers in Southwest London (UK). We focused on the experiences and perspectives of 19 key players who were interviewed about the inception, implementation and development of IPE over 15 years. Our aim was to understand their views of IPE and its evolution over time. Interviewees provided different understandings of IPE, as well as contrasting views regarding its purpose and optimum delivery. Problems such as lack of central planning and the logistics of implementation were also discussed. Paradoxically, however, the participants highlighted positive outcomes and conveyed optimistic messages for the future. Despite various challenges and setbacks, a strong belief in the importance of IPE and a commitment to carrying it through were strong motivators contributing to finding solutions, as were building trust and positive relationships across professional and disciplinary boundaries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".