Changes of Interprofessional Education in Athletic Training: A 5-Year Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional Education (IPE) prepares students in the healthcare field for collaborative practices. Faculty perceptions of IPE have been investigated among several health professions. We assess athletic training (AT) faculty perceptions of the importance of the four IPE competencies, their attitudes towards IPE, their attitudes and beliefs about IPE in the academic settings, their perceived barriers, and opportunities towards implementing IPE in AT curricula; and how these have changed. This study utilized a cross-sectional online survey administered anonymously in 2017 and 2022. The study population was faculty from accredited AT education programs in the USA identified through the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA). We find that in the last five years, faculty perception of IPE has shifted to a more positive attitude toward understanding and implementing IPE in AT programs. However, data showed no significant differences between the initial and follow-up studies. Values and ethics and teams and teamwork were the two competencies ranked the highest in both studies. Younger respondents ranked communication higher than older respondents. Barriers to IPE implementation included lack of resources, allocated funding, and institutional support. The creation of an IPE program coordinator was one of the opportunities highlighted. Faculty of AT programs are aware of the importance of IPE and demonstrated a general positive attitude toward implementing IPE in their AT curricula. However, several barriers have been identified, including a perceived negative attitudes toward AT from other health professions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".