Interprofessional collaboration among sport science and sports medicine professionals: an international cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in other areas of healthcare, the quality of patient care in the field of sport science and sports medicine (SSSM) could benefit from interprofessional collaboration between the professions involved. As a prerequisite, healthcare providers in the SSSM field should be equipped with positive attitudes and perceptions toward interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and interprofessional education (IPE), however detailed investigations are lacking. This study aimed to collect and compare socio-demographic data as well as interprofessional attitudes of SSSM professionals from an international perspective. Subjects were invited via professional SSSM organizations, personal networks and social media to participate in a cross-sectional online survey. Three-hundred and twenty complete datasets of SSSM professionals from the regions USA (n = 83), Canada (n = 179) and Europe (n = 58) were evaluated. In this survey, socio-demographic data as well as attitudes toward IPC and IPE using the 4 subscales of the University of West of England interprofessional Questionnaire (UWE-IP) were collected and analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. In the socio-demographic data, there was a diversity of participants representing different regional healthcare, sports and educational framing conditions. On average, in all regions clear positive attitudes were shown in the UWE-IP subscales communication & teamwork, interprofessional learning and interprofessional relationship, whereas in the subscale interprofessional interaction negative perceptions were observed on average across all regions. Significant effects of participants' demographic variables region, age and gender on some of the subscales were detected. Practitioners in the SSSM field have a high willingness and a beneficial preparedness for IPC and IPE, however, the framing conditions and the systems the respondents surveyed are working in do not support IPC. Interprofessional settings in learning and in workplace (e.g., theme-centred workshops, patient-centred case studies, health promotion activities) may help to improve interprofessional interactions in SSSM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".