Enablers and barriers to implementing an interdisciplinary experiential learning program for university students in a Canadian rehabilitation centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This qualitative study aims to identify a comprehensive set of enablers and barriers to implementing an interdisciplinary experiential learning program for university students at a Canadian rehabilitation centre. Methods: A researcher conducted one-on-one semi-structured interviews with individuals from four key stakeholder groups (i.e., rehabilitation centre leadership, clinicians, university clinical coordinators, and health and rehabilitation students). Interviews and data analysis followed the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which is designed to identify possible cognitive, affective, social, and environmental influences on program implementation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and two researchers coded data independently to identify the major themes of enablers and barriers to implementing an interdisciplinary experiential learning approach to rehabilitation care. Results: From a total of 12 interviews, domains of the TDF were identified to represent overarching themes, which were (1) enablers (i.e., reinforcement, beliefs and consequences, optimism, professional identity, knowledge, and skills), (2) barriers (i.e., environment/resources and beliefs and capabilities), and (3) program development (i.e., goals and evaluation that was not previously a TDF domain). A list of recommendations for implementing an interdisciplinary experiential learning program was created that represented qualitative data from each stakeholder group. Conclusion: This study provides insight into the potential enablers and barriers to developing an interdisciplinary experiential learning program for university students within rehabilitation centres. This type of program could enhance educational curriculums, student and clinical experiences, and patient outcomes. In this study, the findings inform recommendations for developing an interdisciplinary program in teaching hospitals and explore their potential impact. Future research and pilot studies must be conducted to fully understand the effects of implementing an interdisciplinary experiential learning approach within rehabilitation centres.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".