A comparative study of professional and interprofessional values between health professional associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for effective interprofessional collaboration to ensure safe patient care is crucial. However, health professions are guided by separate professional codes of conduct. To examine whether professional codes are consistent across professions, this review examines 13 key health professional associations in the United States and compares their values to the guiding principles of interprofessional practice defined by the Interprofessional Professionalism Collaborative (IPC). Findings indicate that all six of the IPC's principles (altruism/caring, excellence, ethics, respect, communication, and accountability) were shared by the majority of professions, with many emphasizing two additional attributes, integrity and justice, suggesting there is room to expand the IPC's core principles. Few associations included interprofessional communication and collaboration in their professional codes. There is potential for associations to promote greater interprofessional collaboration by reshaping their professional frameworks. With many shared values across professions, establishing a common framework of interprofessional professionalism is feasible.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".