Leveling the Playing Field: An Interprofessional Rural Preceptorship Pilot for Students of Nursing and Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the ubiquity of interprofessional education (IPE) in the health sciences, cultural barriers to collaboration and socialization across disciplines are pervasive and persistent. The Interprofessional Rural Preceptorship Pilot (IPRPP) was implemented over 18 months between 2014 and 2015, to deliver mutual, practice-based, collaborative experiences to students of nursing and medicine, and to capitalize on the multidisciplinary team ethos of rural settings in socializing these students into an interprofessional culture. Students; precepting nurses and physicians; unit managers; and faculty supplied qualitative research data through semistructured interviews and focus groups, to help determine the effectiveness of the IPRPP in achieving its ends. Thematic analysis of transcripts, field notes and memos revealed that the pilot: 1) induced all participants to reflect on cultural barriers to IPE, particularly in light of the more experienced, male physicians’ apparent reluctance to buy into the pilot or the research study; 2) sensitized medical students to the scope of practice, roles and knowledge base of registered nurses and nursing students, whom they came to value as collaborators and teachers; and 3) inspired nursing students to take the lead in arranging interprofessional experiences, and to assert their viewpoints as equals within the multidisciplinary team. It was found that liminal (transitional) spaces and the frontline relaxation of traditional hierarchies—both widely acknowledged features of rural health care settings—contributed to these outcomes. The findings show that clinical settings have a significant impact on the interprofessional socialization of nursing and medical students, with implications for the design of future IPE initiatives.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".