MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390104481 · doi:10.1080/13561820.2023.2289511

Characterization and analysis of the proposals submitted to the PET-Health Interprofessionality in Brazil: advancements and future directions

2023· article· en· W4390104481 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marcelo Viana da Costa, Cristiano Gil Regis, Adson Araceli Alves Dantas, José Rodrigues Freire Filho, Guilherme Rodrigues Barbosa, Rosana Aparecida Salvador Rossit

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interprofessional Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Nursing, Elderly Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Health, British Columbia
KeywordsContent analysisNoticeFocus groupInterprofessional educationMedical educationHealth careSAFERProcess (computing)CurriculumPsychologyMedicineSociologyPedagogyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Program of Education through Work for Health (PET-Health), with a focus on interprofessionality, is one of the actions of the Plan for the Strengthening of Interprofessional Education in Brazil. This research aimed to systematically analyze the characteristics of the proposals submitted to the public notice of the PET-Health Interprofessionality specifically in relation to the theoretical-conceptual and methodological alignment of interprofessional education (IPE). The study is a qualitative document content analysis. We analyzed one hundred and twenty projects submitted to the selection process from institutions participating in the PET-Health Interprofessionality. Content analysis followed three steps: pre-analysis, exploration of the material, and treatment and interpretation of results. Seven categories were identified: a) alignment with the theoretical-conceptual frameworks of IPE, b) curriculum changes, c) faculty development with a focus on IPE, d) articulation among objectives, actions, and results expected related to IPE, e) strategies for monitoring and evaluation, f) involvement of users/families and community, and g) development of collaborative competencies. We conclude that while some advancements have been made, there remains a need for more in-depth discussion in Brazil to ensure the development of competencies capable of assuring more integral, resolute, and safer healthcare services, with capacity to (re)signify user-centered care in the planning and delivery of healthcare.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.410 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interprofessional CareSame topicHealth, Nursing, Elderly CareFrench-language works237,207