Cultural Considerations in Interprofessional Education: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Global culture influences health behaviors and attitudes and the way we communicate and solve problems; it can also significantly affect the efficiency of the multicultural and interprofessional healthcare team. This scoping review aims to understand and identify global cultural considerations that exist in interprofessional education (IPE) and that influence the development, implementation, and effectiveness of IPE. Methods and Findings: The search included peer-reviewed articles focused on both IPE and global culture, also referred to as national, ethnic, or racial culture. There was no limitation placed on levels of learners nor specific health professions. Articles were excluded if they did not explicitly discuss global cultural considerations in IPE. The authors screened 1094 records, and 155 full-text articleswere assessed for eligibility. No eligible papers were found for inclusion yielding an empty review. The most common reasons for exclusion were failure to address global culture and a focus on provider-patient cultural competency as opposed to cultural aspects of IPE. Conclusions: Despite the recognition of the importance of global culture in all interactions, it is not explicitly addressed within the interprofessional healthcare team or the development and implementation of IPE. Studies addressing culturally congruent teamwork and IPE, and the relationship to culturally inclusive patient care, are needed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".