Introductory Experiential Learning in IPE Teams: Changes in Team Collaboration and Cultural Attitudes and Beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An introductory, longitudinal, authentic experiential IPE opportunity named LIFE was delivered. The objectives were to 1) compare attitudes, including cultural attitudes and beliefs, and team behaviours of learners over time, and 2) assess association between participation in LIFE and changes in team attitudes and performance. Methods: Students (n = 48) from eight schools worked in eight teams. Each team was assigned to a patient/family, who was asked about health and healthcare experiences. Students completed Students’ Perceptions of Interprofessional Clinical Education–Revision 2 (SPICE-R2), Cultural Attitude and Belief Scale (CABS), and Interprofessional Collaborator Assessment Rubric (ICAR). Analyses focused on differences over time for all participants and by team. Findings: Knowledge of roles improved for four teams, and five teams showed improvements in “techniques” to interact with diverse patients. Notably, “communication,” “collaborative working,” and “roles” changed across three teams for ICAR. One team showed improvements in all three assessments and two teams showed little to no changes. Conclusion: LIFE was associated with improvements in “roles” and “techniques” to help teams interact with diverse patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".