MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W437575732 · doi:10.22230/jripe.2010v1n2a10

How Medical Students Conceptualize Disability: Implications for Interprofessional Practice and Education

2010· article· en· W437575732 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniel J. Bechard, Adam M. B. Day, Sinéad Dufour, Agnieszka Dzioba, Colin McCabe, Scott M. Rasmussen, Philip C. Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Medical educationClinical psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study explored whether medical students at a Canadian university conceptualize health and disability from a biomedical or biopsychosocial perspective. The World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) served as the theoretical basis for this exploration.Methods: A written survey was administered to capture medical students' conceptualizations of health and disability. The survey included questions explicitly related to the constructs of universalism, nonlinearity, social and environmental factors, personal factors, participation, aspects of language and biopsychosocial health perspectives. The survey was also designed to include both theoretical and scenario-based questions related to biopsychosocial concepts of disability. The survey was distributed to and completed by a senior medical school class at a Canadian university.Results: In total, 82 out of 131 medical students completed the survey. Observed trends suggested that for theory-based questions, respondents exhibited close agreement with biopsychosocial perspectives of health and disability. Scenariobased questions resulted in more variability among respondents compared to theory-based questions. When students who previously had been introduced to the ICF were compared with students who had not, those familiar with the ICF more consistently exhibited a biopsychosocial perspective of health and disability; however these differences were not statistically significant.Conclusion: Overall, senior medical students in this study were generally found to conceptualize disability using a biopsychosocial orientation. This result was more pronounced among students who were previously familiar with the ICF. Interestingly, a biopsychosocial orientation was not consistently maintained for scenario-based questions for all respondents. Our current healthcare climate requires that the concept of health move beyond a biomedical perspective to a more holistic biopsychosocial perspective. This change in perspective is of particular importance as movement towards team-based models of care continues to gain momentum. Closing conceptual and language-based gaps related to concepts of health and disability among all healthcare professionals is pertinent to improvinginterprofessional collaboration and service provision. The ICF presents a framework and language that is relevant across all health professions. Increased use of the ICF in health professional education and training could significantly contribute to increased interdisciplinary success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.504 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and EducationSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207