A Scoping Review of Interprofessional Education Training Aimed to Improve 2SLGBTQ+ Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to identify and summarize the available literature on 2-spirited, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus (2SLGBTQ+) interprofessional health education and to identify optimal methods of interprofessional training to improve health care professional competency for this patient population. METHODS: A search of PubMed and Embase was conducted and supplemented with a manual search of reference lists from identified articles. Articles were included if they reported an interprofessional education event on the topic of 2SLGBTQ+ health to at least 2 or more groups of health care professionals or students. Article screening was completed independently by 2 reviewers. Data from the included articles were extracted and mapped according to the type of participant (health care students or working health care professionals), type of event (workshop, case-based, course/curriculum, or forum), and type of assessment. RESULTS: One hundred articles were screened, of which 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twelve articles focused on interprofessional health education for entry-to-practice students, with the remaining 3 articles involving practicing health care professionals. When mapped by type of event, 1-time case-based and workshop style events were the most used to deliver training. All 15 studies used an immediate presurvey and postsurvey design to evaluate the knowledge and competence of the participants after training. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional education for improving 2SLGBTQ+ health is largely delivered within entry-to-practice degree programs via 1-time events with knowledge- and confidence-based assessments. Further research is needed to determine the impact of this training in practice, as well as the applicability for the training of practicing health care professionals.
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 | 0.019 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".