Assessment of Attitudes and Perceptions of Health Care Students in an Inter‐Professional Cadaveric Dissection Elective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Inter‐professional education (IPE) within healthcare programs has been associated with improved collaborative behavior, patient care and satisfaction, reduced clinical error, and diminished negative professional stereotypes. An inter‐professional gross anatomy dissection course was created at McMaster University to facilitate IPE. Aim Within the course, a study was conducted to assess the attitudes and perceptions of healthcare students towards inter‐professional (IP) learning, at the entire cohort and at the professional group level. Methods Data was collected from eight cohorts over eight years to determine the influence of this IPE course on the attitudes and perceptions of students towards IPE. Each year, 28–35 first year students in medicine, midwifery, nursing, physician's assistant, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy programs are randomly assigned into inter‐professional teams for 10 weeks; a recent addition to the teams is the speech‐language pathology program. A before/after study design measured changes in attitudes and perceptions amongst all students (n = 191) and within each professional group. At week 1 and week 10 of the course, students were administered two scales to assess attitudes towards IP learning: the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) and the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS). Pre‐ and post‐course sub‐scale score mean differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon Signed‐Rank Test (a = 0.05, two tail hypothesis). Results When assessing the entire cohort together, students experienced significant improvements (p < 0.05) in the following sub‐scales: teamwork and collaboration, positive professional identity, perception of actual cooperation, roles and responsibilities, and competency and autonomy. Although sub‐group analysis revealed that each professional group generally improved their attitudes towards IPE, each professional group performed differently on each sub‐scale. Eg. The only sub‐group that experienced significant improvements (p < 0.05) for the “perceived need for cooperation” sub‐scale were the midwifery students (n =25). Both midwifery and medical students (n =59) were resistant to significant changes in attitudes towards IPE, across 5/7 sub‐scales. Discussion and Conclusion Overall, the course led to a general improvement in attitudes and perceptions of students towards IPE and towards anatomy as a setting for IPE. Findings suggest that academic institutions should support ongoing IPE activities for all students, especially those in midwifery and medical school programs, to better prepare students for IP collaboration in the future. Next steps involve determining if students perform better on the IEPS & RIPLS scales in IP groups that share similar positive professional identity levels. Also, course modifications will be implemented to improve the IPE experience based on sub‐scales with unfavorable effect sizes. Finally, scales that can assess communication skills within the IPE course will be administered. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".