Institutional Pressures on Interprofessional Education in Health Care: Canada's Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the permeation of interprofessional education (IPE) activities in health care, there is a lack of scientific consensus for its constituent elements, outcomes, underlying mechanisms, and cost effectiveness. The prominence of IPE in health care is thus paradoxical given the degree of emphasis the industry places on evidence-based practice, and can indicate a systematic misallocation of resources in health professional development and education activities. Using Institutional Theory’s coercive, normative and mimetic pressures, I demonstrate how these three forces can explain the emergence of IPE in the case of Canada. A deductive content analysis of documents from federal and provincial governments, health service providers, and health agencies on IPE activities during Canada’s health reform from 2003 to 2013 revealed the exertion of these institutional pressures, although the roles of coercive and normative pressures were more prominent. Through Institutional Theory, this paper offers a perspective on how an industrial practice can be proliferated in health care in the face of insufficient evidence. Implications for future research are highlighted.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".