Interprofessional education day – an evaluation of an introductory experience for first-year students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional health care teams have been shown to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors, among other benefits. Introducing interprofessional concepts to students in full day events is an established model that allows students to learn together. Our group developed an academic day for first-year students devoted to an introductory interprofessional education (IPE) experience, 'IPE Day'. In total, 438 students representing medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and optometry gathered together, along with 25 facilitators, for IPE Day. Following the day's program, students completed the evaluation consisting of the Interprofessional Collaborative Competencies Attainment Survey and open-ended questions. Narrative responses were analyzed for content and coded using the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative competency domains. Three hundred and eight evaluations were completed. Students reported increased self-ratings of competency across all 20 items (p < 0.05). Their comments were organized into the six domains: interprofessional communication, collaborative leadership, role clarification, patient-centred care, conflict resolution, and team functioning. Based on these findings, we suggest that this IPE activity may be useful for improving learner perceptions about their interprofessional collaborative practice competence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".