<p>Nursing and medical students near-peer activity in the anatomy laboratory: format for success</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: An anatomy interprofessional near-peer learning activity (AIP-NPLA) between nursing and medical students was piloted to assess its implementability. This study aimed to: (1) identify key factors of feasibility and (2) describe student-group perceptions of their experience of the interprofessional education (IPE) activity. METHODS: A total of 59 medical and 179 nursing students participated in the AIP-NPLA whereby medical students were asked to facilitate and lead group discussions with their nursing students colleagues on an anatomical topic using a donor cadaver. Each AIP-NPLA session lasted a total of two hours. A mixed methods approach was employed using both quantitative and qualitative means of assessment. Variables such as Readiness for Interprofessional Learning, Professional Self-Identity, Clinical Teaching Preference, and Near-Peer Teaching and Learning Experience were assessed quantitatively using validated surveys. Qualitative measures included thematic content analysis of focus group interviews conducted following the AIP-NPLA to capture the perceptions of the student groups' experience in the IPE activity. RESULTS: The results of this investigation demonstrated that there are key factors to consider when designing successful and sustainable IPE activities; the level of clinical exposure and therefore student-group pairing based on professional self-identify scores, optimal tutor-to-tutee group ratios and an activity format that maintained an informal, flexible and free forum for discussion on a topic of common knowledge. Focus group interviews also revealed reflections on professional stereotypes. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that early implementation of IPE activities outside of a clinical setting are beneficial and can foster both learning from one another and positive perceptions of interprofessional roles when carefully designed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".