Nursing and Biomedical Laboratory Science (BMLS) Students´ Interprofessional Training in the Simulation Laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to present nursing and Biomedical Laboratory Science (BLMS) students’ perceptions of interprofessional education and collaborative practice in a simulation laboratory.Method: A mixed-method research was employed, and the approach was an explanatory sequential design. A quantitative study was followed by a qualitative study. Sixty-nine students participated in the survey, with 16 items representing different aspects of interprofessionalism.Findings: The factor “value of IPE” scored the highest mean, followed by the factor “need for collaborative practice.” Female students were more positive on the “value of IPE” than male students. The focus-group interviews revealed that the students considered debriefing afer the simulation to be a useful learning opportunity. They commented that it was useful to understand each other’s roles and it made them respect each other more. BMLS students felt that they were peripheral to the case, like a visitor in the simulation scenario.Conclusion: Information for this study was gathered from a large group in a short amount of time. However, the students gained an insight into the need for an interprofessional approach to complex challenges in healthcare.
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 | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".