Domínios de competências essenciais nas práticas colaborativas em equipe interprofissional: revisão integrativa da literatura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O objetivo desta pesquisa foi sintetizar evidências das práticas colaborativas interprofissionais segundo os domínios de competências essenciais do Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC). Foi conduzida revisão integrativa da literatura, dos últimos dez anos, nas bases Pubmed, Web of Science e Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde e síntese das práticas segundo a estrutura proposta pela CIHC. Dos 364 artigos selecionados, 21 foram incluídos com amostras entre 12 e 972 participantes; 11 estudos utilizaram instrumentos para avaliação das práticas; 43% evidenciaram os seis domínios essenciais; e 38%, de três a quatro. A resolução de conflitos interprofissionais não foi abordada em 48% dos artigos. Foi observada a adesão aos domínios de competências essenciais, o que tende a qualificar o processo de trabalho. Entretanto, a lacuna observada na abordagem do enfrentamento dos conflitos interprofissionais representa um obstáculo para vencer a formação uniprofissional.
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 | 0.031 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".