Interprofessional Education in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clerkship: Do We Teach Collaboration?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local Mentor: Glenna Bett, PhD APGO Advisors: Jody Steinauer, MD, MAS, and Sonya Erickson, MD PURPOSE: To ascertain how obstetrics and gynecology (Ob-Gyn) clerkships incorporate interprofessional education (IPE) into the curriculum and Ob-Gyn clerkship directors' opinions regarding IPE. BACKGROUND: The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) identified IPE as a “horizon issue.” Literature review revealed 6 publications regarding IPE focused on the Ob-Gyn clerkship from the United States, Canada and United Kingdom. Most publications on IPE in Ob-Gyn investigated resident and attending perspectives. METHODS: The study used an online survey of Ob-Gyn clerkship directors at English-speaking LCME-accredited allopathic medical schools identified through the AAMC's website. Clerkship directors were identified through institutions' websites. The survey contained 16 questions about clerkship structure, if/how IPE activities are conducted, and clerkship director attitudes regarding IPE. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four eligible medical schools were identified; 237 invitations were sent and 84 complete responses received. Seventy-two percent of clerkship directors believed that IPE should be included in the Ob-Gyn clerkship; 25% were unsure, and 4% did not. However, only 54% of Ob-Gyn clerkships incorporated IPE activities, 39% did not, and 7% planned to do so. The most common IPE activities were joint didactic sessions (58%) and interprofessional patient rounds (47%). The main barrier to implementing IPE was difficulty coordinating schedules (78%). DISCUSSION: The majority of respondents believed IPE should be included in the Ob-Gyn clerkship and had already done so. This is the first study to address practices and attitudes regarding IPE in the Ob-Gyn clerkship, a strength being its broad reach across LCME-accredited institutions. Potential weaknesses include response biases.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".