Insights in interprofessional education: Dental hygiene students' suggestions for collaboration.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interprofessional education (IPE) promotes team-based approaches to professional practice and lifelong collaboration. However, there is little consensus on its "best practice" in dentistry and dental hygiene curricula. This study aimed to explore dental hygiene students' perceptions and experiences of collaboration with dentistry students in an IPE program that authentically represents private practice settings and work processes. The intent was to identify what students thought would best help prepare them to work collaboratively in an oral health team once they graduated after participating in this experience. Methods: Data were collected from 40 dental hygiene student written reflections and 6 dental hygiene students through a focus group session that was audiorecorded and transcribed. Data were examined using thematic analysis. Results: Five interrelated themes emerged: 1) understanding of roles and responsibilities; 2) hierarchical perceptions and level of experience; 3) team dynamics; 4) instructor and staff involvement and support; and 5) timing and structure of IPE activities. The findings suggest that dental hygiene students need consistent and sustained access to realistic environments in which to practise team roles and work directly with dentistry students. Opportunities to build relationships with dentistry students before working together in professional roles appear to alleviate hierarchical concerns that impede teamwork. Conclusion: IPE should occur throughout students' education as hierarchical perceptions appear to influence collaboration. Informal and/or non-clinical IPE opportunities should be introduced early in students' education to develop a foundation for team dynamics in later formal and/or clinical IPE activities. Students should collaborate in ways that will be reflected in professional expectations after graduation; the environment in which they learn their team role should provide the opportunity to authentically practise it.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".