Teaching About Partnerships Between Patients and the Team: Exploring Student Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health profession educators are responding to shifting approaches where patients are increasingly recognized as partners in an interprofessional care process. To foster competencies related to partnerships between patients and the team, educators have advanced the role of patient partners; however, an appreciation of resulting student learning is in its early stages. First-year students from 9 programs interacted with patient partners and participated in a Reader's Theater that explored partnerships with patients in an interprofessional team. Students completed reflective assignments; an inductive thematic analysis explored student learning. The following 4 overarching themes were recognized: developing insights through patient perspective, promoting partnerships with patients, recognizing attitudes that promote therapeutic relationships, and advocating for the patient to be a team member. Accompanying subthemes provide enhancement of each of the identified themes. Students discussed the effect of poor collaboration, identified attitudes that promote collaboration, and expressed the value of advocacy for patient partnership. An enriched appreciation of student learning will guide educator engagement of patient partners in both health professional and interprofessional curricula.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".