Changes in Pharmacy Students After Experiencing Interprofessional Education Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interprofessional education (IPE) has become increasingly important among healthcare professionals. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of IPE experiences on pharmacy students’ perceived level of comfort with and level of reliability regarding other healthcare professionals. Methods and Findings: A survey of third- and fourth-year pharmacy students (N = 190) was analyzed using descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses to address the study objectives. Students experienced a significant increase in their level of comfort with questioning other professions after IPE (pre IPE: 5.45 ± 2.24 and post IPE: 7.22 ± 1.62, p<0.01) and being questioned by other professions (pre IPE: 5.39 ± 2.24 and post IPE: 7.04 ± 1.68, p<0.01). Students also experienced a significant increase in the perceived reliability and accuracy of information from nurses after IPE (pre IPE: 5.91 ± 1.82 and post IPE: 6.41 ± 1.62, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Pharmacy students who experienced any IPE perceived themselves as more comfortable with questioning and being questioned by other healthcare professionals than students without IPE. Additional research is needed to more clearly define the benefits of IPE and how it should be designed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".