MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Formal Interprofessional Ultrasound Curriculum between Medical and Physical Therapy Students in the First Year Gross Anatomy Course

2017· article· en· W2944027920 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher M. Gibbs, Jennifer Knight, Sonya E. Van Nuland, Anjali Bhagra, Nathan J. Hellyer, Natalie R. Langley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasoundCurriculumMedicineGross anatomyTest (biology)Interprofessional educationRecallSession (web analytics)Medical educationMedical physicsAnatomyPsychologyRadiologyHealth carePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound has been used more frequently in the anatomical sciences to reinforce core anatomy concepts in the classroom and introduce commonly applied imaging technologies encountered in a clinical setting. Interprofessional Education (IPE) is being incorporated into health sciences training as a learning model for real world interactions. The primary objective of the current study was to determine the impact of an IPE ultrasound curriculum on students' anatomy and ultrasound knowledge, as well as attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration. We hypothesized that students who participated in an IPE experience would have improved recall of anatomical and ultrasound concepts as well as improved attitudes and perceptions towards IPE when compared to students who did not participate in an IPE session. First year medical students (MD, n = 40) and first year physical therapy students (PT, n = 25) were randomly assigned to PT‐only, MD‐only, or mixed PT‐MD ultrasound instruction groups studying the shoulder. Students were assessed using an anatomy and ultrasound knowledge test and University of the West of England Interprofessional Questionnaire (UWEIPQ) prior to and following the session. The results of this study suggest that while ultrasound instruction significantly improves ultrasound post‐test scores when compared to pre‐test scores regardless of group assignment (PT‐only: p < 0.001; MD‐only: p = 0.007; PT‐MD: p < 0.001), learning in an interprofessional PT‐MD group did not significantly impact knowledge recall of ultrasound concepts when compared to non‐IPE groups. Interestingly, students in PT‐MD groups had significantly higher anatomy post‐test scores when compared to the MD‐only groups (PT‐MD post‐test = 93.2%; MD‐only post‐test = 84.1%; p = 0.041), but not when compared to the PT‐only groups. Additionally, the results of the UWEIPQ are consistent with the impression that students who participate in an IPE experience are more likely to be cognizant of inherent biases in the interactions between different health professionals as well as demonstrate increased confidence in their interprofessional relationships. In conclusion, our study reinforces that IPE programs should quantify knowledge recall in order to assess the effectiveness of a specific program. Furthermore, such endeavors should assess important competencies including communication, teamwork, and interdisciplinary respect that are necessary to succeed in a multidisciplinary health care team. Support or Funding Information Department of Anatomy, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Social Science and Humanities Research Council, Government of Canada

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→