An Innovative Program to Support Internationally Educated Health Professionals and Their Instructors: Role of the Clinical Practice Facilitator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Internationally educated health professionals immigrating to other countries may experience difficulty in clinical practice, due to linguistic and cultural factors. An important element of bridging is the opportunity for internationally educated health professionals to practice in a clinical environment. To support these health professionals and their clinical instructors, a Clinical Practice Facilitator (CPF) role was created. This study aimed to examine the CPF from internationally educated health professionals and clinical instructors' perspective. METHODS: A quantitative survey was conducted with two cohorts (2013 and 2015) of internationally educated physical therapists and clinical instructors who were asked about the nature of interaction with CPFs, mentor, and education roles and the benefits and challenges of the role. RESULTS: Thirty-five internationally educated physical therapists and 37 clinical instructors participated and were satisfied with the interaction with CPFs via face-to-face or e-mail communication. There was strong agreement (>80%) that the CPF educator role was to facilitate learner's reflection on clinical practice while the mentor role (>70%) was to answer questions, provide feedback, and investigate clinical concerns and conflicts. There was insufficient time for access to CPFs and resolution of learners' learning needs. There were differences (P = 0.04) in perspective on the benefit of the CPF in assisting with cultural differences. DISCUSSION: An innovative CPF role provided support encouragement, clinical, and professional advice. There were discordant views regarding the benefits of the CPF role in addressing cultural issues, which requires further examination.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".