Outcomes of interprofessional education for Community Mental Health Services in England: The longitudinal evaluation of a postgraduate programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report a comprehensive, longitudinal evaluation of a two-year, part-time postgraduate programme designed to enable health and social care professionals in England to work together to deliver new community mental health services, including psychosocial interventions (PSIs). The study tracked three successive cohorts of students (N = 111) through their learning. Outcomes were assessed according to the Kirkpatrick/Barr et al. framework using a mixed methodology, which employed both quantitative measures and interviews. The students evaluated the programme positively and appreciated its focus on interprofessional learning and partnership with services users, but mean levels of stress increased and almost one quarter dropped out. There was considerable evidence of professional stereotyping but little evidence of change in these during the programme. Students reported substantial increases in their knowledge and skills in multidisciplinary team working and use of PSIs (p < 0.001). Experiences in the implementation of learning varied; in general, students reported significantly greater role conflict (p = 0.01) compared to a sample of their team colleagues (N = 62), but there was strong evidence from self-report measures (p < 0.001) and work-place interviews that the students' use of PSIs had increased. Users with severe mental health problems (N = 72) randomly selected from caseloads of two cohorts of students improved over six months in terms of their social functioning (p = 0.047) and life satisfaction (p = 0.014). Having controlled statistically for differences in baseline score, those in the intervention (programme) group retained a significant advantage in terms of life skills (p < 0.001) compared to service users in two non-intervention comparison groups (N = 133). Responses on a user-defined measure indicated a high level of satisfaction with students' knowledge, skills and personal qualities. We conclude that that there is strong evidence that a well-designed programme of IPE can be effective in helping students to learn new knowledge and skills, and to implement their learning in the workplace. Further, we consider that there is some modest evidence of the benefits of such learning for service users.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".