Enhancing interprofessional practice through the co-design of a holistic culturally and developmentally informed First Nations child health assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This qualitative study explored staff experiences of co-designing and implementing a novel interprofessional (IP) First Nations child health assessment (the helpful check), developed in partnership with a remote North-Queensland Aboriginal CommunityControlled Health Organisation. METHOD: Eleven staff across two teams (family health and allied health) were involved in co-designing and implementing the child health assessment and associated IP practices. Interviews were undertaken using a semi-structured interview template and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were developed: (1) connect teams by building strong relationships; (2) leave space for helpful check processes to evolve; and (3) integrate helpful check processes into routine practice to sustain change. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate how the incorporation of IP practices into a remote primary healthcare setting led to perceived benefits for both the health service staff and clients.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it