Exploring the Use of an Interprofessional Education Session for Speech-Language Pathology and Pharmacy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional education (IPE) occurs when students are provided the opportunity to learn with and from others of related professions to improve the potential for future collaboration. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of students about working with professionals from different disciplines before and after their engagement in an interprofessional learning activity and determine any changes in their willingness to work in interprofessional teams. Doctor of Pharmacy students from the University of Manitoba and Master’s speech-language pathology students from McMaster University participated in an online inter-university and inter-provincial education module. Students were invited to complete the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS-9B) and three open-ended questions to capture attitudes toward interprofessional teams before and after the IPE event. A mixed-method approach was used to assess changes in attitudes, values, and comfort with collaborating. A total of 20 students completed the pre-survey and 19 completed the post-survey; significant changes in total ISVS-9B scores were observed. Four questions of the ISVS-9B also showed significant positive changes after the IPE event. Qualitative themes were identified from responses to the open-ended questions: collaboration optimizes patient care, collaboration is fostered by clear communication, learning from peers increases knowledge and appreciation of professional roles, and IPE fosters the potential for future collaborations. This study suggests that a virtual IPE event tailored to pharmacy and speech-language pathology trainees may be effective in fostering future interdisciplinary collaboration through increasing knowledge and appreciation of other professional roles with a primary goal of optimizing patient 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".