Insights of undergraduate health sciences students about a French interprofessional training initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incorporating interprofessional collaboration within healthcare is critical to delivery of patient-centered care. Interprofessional Education (IPE) programs are key to promoting such collaboration. The 'Public Health Service' (PHS) in France is a mandatory IPE initiative that embodies this collaborative spirit, bringing together students from varied health undergraduate training programs-nursing, physiotherapy, pharmacy, midwifery, and medicine- in a common training program focused on primary prevention. The aim of the study was to assess the experience and attitudes of students in the five health training programs regarding the interest of IPEs in the PHS. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 823 students from the 2022-2023 cohort at a French university. The questionnaire was designed with 12 Likert-scale questions specifically created to evaluate the students' experiences, knowledge, and attitudes focused on IPE during the practical seminars, school interventions, and the overall PHS. Additionally, an open-ended question was utilized to gather qualitative data. Statistical analyses assessed satisfaction levels across undergraduate training programs, while thematic analysis was applied to the qualitative responses. RESULTS: Within the surveyed cohort, 344 students responded to the survey. The findings showed that students were satisfied with the interprofessional collaboration, both in practical teaching sessions (75% satisfaction) and in primary prevention projects conducted in schools (70% satisfaction), despite their having faced challenges with coordination. Pharmacy students, in particular, highlighted the need for adjustments in program scheduling. The qualitative feedback underscored the positive value of IPE, notwithstanding the organizational difficulties stemming from different academic timetables. CONCLUSION: The student feedback indicated a high level of satisfaction with the interprofessional work carried out in both the practical teaching and the primary prevention projects. To further enhance the educational impact and address the scheduling complexities, it is recommended that program refinements be made based on student feedback and pedagogical best practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".