A critical interpretive synthesis of interprofessional education interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional practice can look quite different depending on a number of dynamics. Interprofessional education interventions may or may not orient toward this range of practice possibilities. This literature review explores: (1) how interprofessional education interventions relate to different kinds of interprofessional practice and (2) the range of interprofessional practices assumed by interprofessional education interventions. Four databases were searched for articles published between 2011-2021 describing pre-licensure level interprofessional education interventions, resulting in a dataset of 110 articles. Our analysis involved (1) descriptive summaries of the articles, and (2) content analysis of the rationale and description of the intervention. Of the articles, 93% (102/110) of interprofessional education interventions were designed and/or evaluated using the concept of interprofessional education competencies. "Teamwork" was the most relied upon competency. Most articles were not explicit about the different kinds of interprofessional practices that these competencies might be oriented toward. Our study substantiates earlier claims that interprofessional education literature tends to focus on competencies and orient toward undifferentiated understandings of "teamwork." This analysis is particularly important as interprofessional teams are engaging in increasingly complex, fluid, and distributed forms of interprofessional practice that may not be captured in an undifferentiated approach to "teamwork."
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".