Pre-entry perceptions of students entering five health professions: implications for interprofessional education and collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dysfunctional interprofessional teams are a threat to health system performance and the delivery of quality patient outcomes. Implementing strategies that prepare future health professionals to be effective collaborators requires a comprehensive understanding of how early professional socialization and professional identity formation occur. We present findings from a qualitative study, grounded in narrative methodology, examining early professional socialization among students across five health professional programs (dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, physiotherapy) in the first year of health professional training. Between April and September 2015, students (n = 49) entering programs at an Atlantic Canadian University participated in one-on-one, audiotaped interviews starting before formal program orientation. Pre-entry interviews focused on factors influencing students' career choice and expectations of future profession and interprofessional collaboration (IPC). Findings revealed that many different experiences influenced participants' career choice and framed the social positioning of their future career (e.g., leadership, prestige, autonomy). Participant narratives revealed the existence of stereotypes pertaining to their chosen and other health professions. Study findings provided insights that may help strengthen initiatives to promote positive professional identity formation within the context of IPC. Implications of this research highlight the need for the early introduction of IPC including pre-entry recruitment messaging for prospective health professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".