Paid co-op models for health professional programs: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical learning is key for health professional students. As we face, worldwide, an aging healthcare workforce and widespread staff shortages, the urgency to adopt innovative and scalable models of clinical education has never been greater. These new approaches are essential not only to address the current capacity challenges but also to ensure the sustainability and quality of care, particularly as healthcare needs become more complex and patient populations continue to grow. Co-operative education (co-op) programs provide students with the opportunity to gain practical experiences in a clinical setting as part of their formal education while receiving some financial remuneration. Yet, little is known about the most effective ways to design, implement and evaluate these programs to best benefit patients, students, educational, and healthcare organizations. Our goal was to explore the available literature on paid co-op education models for students in health professional programs.Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the six stages of the Arskey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework and the PRISMA-ScR reporting format. This included defining the research question, developing the search strategy, conducting a two-step screening process, and performing data extraction and analysis of the included studies.Results: A total of 30 articles were included. Studies were from the United States (n = 14), the United Kingdom (n = 8), Canada (n = 4), Ireland (n = 2), New Zealand (n = 1) and Iran (n = 1). Most studies aimed to describe or evaluate the paid co-op programs (n = 12), or aimed to explore the experience of students, preceptors or faculty members who participated in a co-op program (n = 10). The studies included a wide range of healthcare professionals, including nursing (n = 21), pharmacy (n = 3), midwifery (n = 1), medicine (n = 1), occupational therapy (n = 1), audiology (n = 1), social work (n = 1), and a combination of occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech-language pathology (n = 1).Conclusions: The results of this scoping review contributed to the existing literature on paid co-op education programs for students in health professional programs. We explored the current state of these programs, the benefits and the challenges of these programs, and the potential directions for future planning, implementation, and research in this area. Health care leaders, program directors, clinical educators, and curriculum developers will be able to use these findings to inform future co-op programs that fosters mutual benefits for students, educational, and healthcare organizations.
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 | 0.030 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".