Barriers to the preceptor’s role in interprofessional education: scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background With the expansion of interprofessional health education, preceptors are increasingly working with learners from several professions to promote collaborative practice. It is unclear what are the challenges toward interprofessional education in preceptor's learning environment. A scoping review was conducted to map the barriers to preceptorship role in interprofessional health education. The following research question was formulated: What are the barriers to preceptor's role in interprofessional education? Methods The research question was defined with the framework PCC: Population - preceptors; Concept - barriers to preceptorship role; Context - interprofessional health education initiatives. A systematic search in 8 databases was conducted in April 2020 to identify primary research studies published in Portuguese, Spanish or English. Independent screenings of titles/abstracts followed by full texts were performed using pre-defined criteria. This review followed the Institute Joanna Briggs Manual of Evidences (2020) and the PRISMA-ScR guideline. Results A total of 28 studies from the United States, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Sweden and the United Kingdom remained to extract barriers. Barriers were summarized in five main aspects: limited resources, preceptorship regulation, patients participation, teaching-service integration, local culture for interprofessional teamwork and preceptor development. Some of the barriers were: lack of coordination between educational institutions and health services, hierarchical relationship among professionals, unfavorable working environment for interprofessional collaboration, unclear professional roles and need of preceptor development. Conclusions Many barriers have been identified at the macro and microstructural levels of health systems. Discussing and analyzing such barriers is fundamental for advancing the debate on the skills and roles of preceptors, with a view to strengthen the Interprofessional Health Education. Key messages Preceptorship is important to development interprofessional collaboration. The results make it possible to plan strategies that contribute to professional recognition and professional development.
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 | 0.040 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".