Educação interprofissional e prática colaborativa na Atenção Primária à Saúde*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To understand the perceptions of professors, health care providers and students about the articulation of interprofessional education with health practices in Primary Health Care. Method To understand and interpret qualitative data collection, carried out between 2012 and 2013, through semi-structured interviews with 18 professors and four sessions of homogeneous focus groups with students, professors and health care providers of Primary Health Care. Results A triangulation of the results led to the construction of two categories: user-centered collaborative practice and barriers to interprofessional education. The first perspective indicates the need to change the model of care and training of health professionals, while the second reveals difficulties perceived by stakeholders regarding the implementation of interprofessional education. Conclusion The interprofessional education is incipient in the Brazil and the results of this analysis point out to possibilities of change toward collaborative practice, but require higher investments primarily in developing teaching-health services relationship.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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 it