MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388692133 · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1836

“Learning with each other, about each other”: Interdisciplinary learning among genetic counseling students and clinical health psychology residents

2023· article· en· W4388692133 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica N. Hartley, Maxine Holmqvist

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationMedical educationPsychologyHealth careGenetic counselingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interprofessional collaborative healthcare is known to improve provider satisfaction and retention, as well as patient safety and quality of care. The specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to work in these environments are best taught interprofessionally. Despite having considerable overlap in training, orientation, and populations served, it is rare for trainees from genetic counseling and clinical health psychology to interact and learn together. In 2017, we developed an innovative week-long clinical health psychology rotation for students in the University of Manitoba MSc in Genetic Counselling Program, which aims to enrich psychotherapeutic/counseling knowledge and skills, as well as gain familiarity with the work of clinical psychologists. This rotation incorporates didactic teaching, observation, and structured reflection. Didactic teaching includes topics such as psychological assessment, adaptation to life-altering news, skills for managing intense emotional responses, and counseling for change. Observations of clinical health psychologists and clinical health psychology residents occur in a range of health settings. Structured reflection is practiced in both oral and written formats. Finally, both groups of trainees participate in an interprofessional case seminar series. Feedback from this experience has been very promising, and it was identified as a strength in the program's accreditation review. Adaptations over time include refining the clinical exposures to increase breadth and relevance, increasing the contact between the trainees from the two professions and enhancing the case seminar series to be more learner-driven and to focus on explicit interprofessional skills and themes. In addition to expected results, this rotation has led to some unanticipated findings, including an emergent emphasis on the social determinants of health and the need to work collaboratively for systemic change. Further, psychology residents have identified that it benefits them to learn more about genetic counseling and expressed interest in potential reciprocal learning opportunities in genetics clinics.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.469 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207