Interprofessional Curriculum for Regulated Health Care Professions in Ontario: Continuing Education Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Queen’s University Interprofessional Working Team, as part of the Interprofessional Education (IPE) Curricula Models for Healthcare Providers in Ontario (IPECM) working group, has been tasked to present a scoping review of existing national and international interprofessional education programs and to develop a guiding curriculum framework for pre‐registration, continuing education and post‐ registration health provider education. Achieving this project’s aims will ultimately provide a foundation that promotes collaborative, patient‐centred practice by utilizing the skills, knowledge and scope of practice of all members of the health care team. The current scoping review of interprofessional continuing education programs for the 21 regulated health professions and social work in Ontario will be presented here. A comprehensive scoping review of voluntary and suggested IPE continuing‐education programs available for registered health care professionals was investigated. Both peer, and non‐peer reviewed literature, as well as grey literature, from sources such as university/ college websites and professional organizations, were examined. Identified gaps in research include a widespread lack of IPE curriculum documentation in research as well as few available IPE continuing education programs. Some barriers enabling these shortfalls may include lack of funding, lack of human resources, and lack of support, experience and knowledge in developing interdisciplinary programs. Next steps include synthesizing and summarizing the current available training courses and modules for each regulated health profession. These summaries will be integrated with the pre‐ and post‐registration scoping review and guiding curricula framework.
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 | 0.024 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".