A qualitative examination of social work students’ participation in an interprofessional pain curriculum symposium
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been calls for more mobilization of social workers within chronic pain services because social workers are uniquely positioned to address stress, depression, and anxiety related to pain. This qualitative study aimed to understand social work students’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of participating in an interprofessional pain curriculum. Four focus groups were conducted with 14 participants who were graduate-level social work students that participated in an interprofessional pain curriculum symposium. This study revealed five benefits to students: i) learning new knowledge about pain, ii) applying social work knowledge and skills, iii) gaining confidence in the value of social work contributions to care, iv) exposing other disciplines to social work, and v) collaborating with other disciplines. This study also revealed four challenges: i) learning biomedical content, ii) inadequate social work-specific content, iii) encountering difficulties with interprofessional collaboration, and iv) other disciplines having had little previous exposure to social work. Understanding the benefits and challenges of participating in an interprofessional education symposium on pain will help social work educators better prepare social work students to engage in such learning opportunities, and ultimately, will better prepare social workers for a future practice in interprofessional collaborative contexts.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it