Interprofessional Education Opportunities for Health Care Educators in the Practice Setting: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health care educators in the practice setting are responsible for providing education to frontline staff and require knowledge and skills to interact with interprofessional health care providers and teach content in an effective way. Interprofessional education opportunities for health care educators in the practice setting may be helpful in preparing educators to meet the needs of frontline staff, yet the extant state of literature on this topic has not been recently synthesized. In this integrative review, we aimed to explore what is known about interprofessional education opportunities offered to health care educators who are responsible for educating other health care professionals in practice settings and assess how these education opportunities were described and evaluated in the literature. METHODS: We conducted an integrative literature review following the methodology put forth by Toronto and Remington. RESULTS: Of the 3690 publications identified, 30 met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the publications lacked rigorous methodology. Education interventions varied in content, duration, and teaching strategies. Key findings were identified: (1) educator satisfaction and content relevance, (2) impact on knowledge, skills, and confidence, (3) impact on teaching practice, (4) impact on clinical practice, (5) impact on interprofessional competencies and attitudes, (6) challenges to implementing interprofessional education opportunities, and (7) facilitators to implementing interprofessional education opportunities. DISCUSSION: Although interprofessional education opportunities for health care educators in the practice setting may be beneficial to educators and the frontline staff they serve, more rigorous research is needed to understand how these opportunities can influence teaching and clinical practice.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 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".