Framing asynchronous interprofessional education: a qualitative study on medical, physiotherapy and nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To explore how virtual, asynchronous modules can be used in interprofessional health education curricula and to identify any advantages and shortcomings of asynchronous interprofessional education. Methods: A sample of 27 health professional students who attended in-person interprofessional education workshops at the McMaster Centre for Simulation-Based Learning from 2019-2020 were recruited through email discourse. Participants were asked to complete an asynchronous interprofessional education module and take part in a semi-structured interview that was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Techniques of direct content analysis were used to analyze the qualitative data from recorded transcripts. Results: The following emergent themes from participants' responses were identified: 1) the modules, as well as the features interspersed throughout, taught strategies for conflict resolution and interprofessional communication, 2) the modules have utility in preparing students for future interprofessional learning, 3) the convenience of virtual asynchronous modules introduces a sense of learner safety, and 4) a sense of isolation and fatigue was identified as a consequence of the lack of face-to-face interaction in these modules. Conclusion: Asynchronous interprofessional education modules may be best suited to prepare students for future interprofessional learning in a synchronous setting. Asynchronous modules effectively provide an introduction to interprofessional objectives such as conflict resolution and role clarification, yet the competency of team functioning is more difficult to achieve in an asynchronous environment. Future studies may focus on establishing a sequence of completing asynchronous modules for ideal development of interprofessional competencies in health professions learners.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".