Perspectives of Social Workers and Other Healthcare Professionals on Collaborative Work to Address Complex Situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents results from an original study on the experience of health care and social work (SW) practitioners within interprofessional (IP) teams. This qualitative research project is based on an interpretive paradigm and seeks to understand various aspects of the interprofessional collaboration (IPC) experience. Participants in this study (n=35) work in different practice settings, both urban and rural regions of New Brunswick, Canada. Research team used semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions for data collection. The results discussed in this article highlight aspects (individual, inter-relational, organizational, and macrostructural) that foster or hinder IPC as well as benefits of collaborative work for service users, professionals, and agencies. To conclude, we propose ideas for future research, as well as ways to think about education for health and SW programs. More specifically, it is important to foster a culture of collaboration and to develop learning opportunities with regard to complex situations and interprofessional collaboration by offering students as well as practitioners common spaces for collaborative work.
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 | 0.032 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".