Interprofessional peer-assisted learning for pharmacy and physical therapy students using inhalers and inhalation devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer-assisted learning (PAL) is exchanging knowledge between learners often from similar professional levels. Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of PAL between different healthcare professions. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the knowledge, confidence, and perception of students engaged in an interprofessional PAL activity with pharmacy students instructing physical therapy students on the proper technique, cleaning/storage and therapeutic knowledge on inhaler devices for treatment of pulmonary conditions. METHODS: Pharmacy and physical therapy students completed a survey before and immediately after the PAL activity. As instructors, pharmacy students rated their experience with inhalers, their confidence if they were to assist clients on the use of inhaler devices and confidence in teaching peers. Physical therapy students completed surveys on inhaler knowledge with 10 scenario-based multiple-choice questions, and their confidence if they were to assist clients with inhaler devices. The knowledge questions were grouped into three categories: storage and cleaning of inhalers (3 questions), technique of using inhalers (4 questions), and therapeutic knowledge of drugs given by inhalation (3 questions). RESULTS: 102 physical therapy and 84 pharmacy students completed the activity and surveys. For the physical therapy students, the mean improvement of the total score for knowledge-based questions was 3.6 ± 1.8 (p < 0.001). The question with the fewest number of correct answers (13%) before the PAL activity had the highest number of correct answers post-activity (95%). Prior to the activity, no physical therapy students felt certain/very certain about their knowledge on inhalers, yet after PAL activity this proportion increased to 35%. The percent of pharmacy students reporting their confidence as "certain" and "very certain" in teaching peers increased from 46% before the activity to 90% afterwards. Pharmacy students rated the monitoring and follow-up of inhaler devices as the lowest expectation for physical therapists to play a role. Steps taken to prepare for this PAL activity were also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional PAL can increase knowledge and confidence of healthcare students reciprocally learning and teaching in joint activities. Allowing such interactions facilitate students to build interprofessional relationships during their training, which can increase communication and collaboration to foster an appreciation for each other's roles in clinical practice.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".