Increasing interprofessional collaboration in community-based palliative care: a pilot study of the CAPACITI education program for primary care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional collaboration in palliative care is essential to ensuring high-quality care for seriously ill patients. Education interventions to increase competency in palliative care should incorporate team-building skills to encourage an interprofessional approach. We developed and piloted a virtual educational program named CAPACITI for interprofessional teams to promote a community palliative approach to care. Primary care teams from across Ontario, Canada, participated in CAPACITI which consisted of 10 facilitated sessions that emphasized how to operationalize a palliative care approach as a team. Pre- and post-study questionnaires were completed by each team, including the AITCS-II, a validated instrument that measures interprofessional collaboration. We analyzed individual paired differences in summary scores and in each of three subdomains of the AITCS-II questionnaire: partnership, cooperation, and coordination. Seventeen teams completed the AITCS-II post survey, representing 133 participants. Teams varied demographically and ranged from 5 to 16 members. After CAPACITI, the overall mean AITCS-II summary score among teams increased to 96.0 (SD = 10.0) for a significant paired mean difference increase of 9.4 (p = .03). There were also significant increases in the partnership (p = .01) and in the cooperation subdomains (p = .04). CAPACITI demonstrated the potential for improving collaboration among primary care teams, which can lead to improved provider and patient outcomes in palliative care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".