Improving interprofessional collaboration: The effect of training in nonviolent communication
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
This article examines the effects of nonviolent communication (NVC) training on the interprofessional collaboration (IPC) of two health and social services sector care teams. The study was conducted in 2013 with two interprofessional teams (N = 9) using a mixed method research design to measure the effects of the training. Individual IPC competency was measured using the Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter tool, and group competency using the Observed Interprofessional Collaboration tool. A focus group was held to collect participant perceptions of what they learned in the training. Results revealed improvements in individual competency in client/family-centered collaboration and role clarification. Improvements in group competency were also found with respect to teams' ability to develop a shared plan of action. Data suggests that participants accepted and adopted training content. After the training, they appeared better able to identify the effects of spontaneous communication, more understanding of the mechanisms of empathy, and in a better position to foster collective leadership.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it