From Fringe to Core: Speaking Out About Our Evolving Role as Patient Partners in the PARTENAIRES Interprofessional Education Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For the past 15 years, an innovative curriculum named Formation PARTENAIRES has been advancing patient partnership in interprofessional education (IPE) at Université de Montréal. The aim of this article is to describe, from the perspective of patients themselves, the changing role of patients within this training programme. APPROACH: The PARTENAIRES programme is a mandatory undergraduate IPE curriculum implemented across 13 healthcare and social services disciplines, involving over 5000 students and 125 patient partners annually. The programme's evolution has been marked by increasing patient leadership and is now co-chaired by a patient partner and a healthcare professional, with patients involved at all levels (design, delivery, assessment and improvement). EVALUATION: Key developments in patients' relationships with other stakeholders involved in the PARTENAIRES programme are highlighted. With students, patients have transitioned from providing one-off, idealised testimonials to sustaining reflexive, real conversations that bridge the student-patient gap. With academic disciplines, patient partners that were initially paired based on matching with their lived experience are now paired more flexibly to foster a universal educational contribution and support interdisciplinary learning. With clinical co-facilitators, the patients' role has evolved from reactive participation during workshops to proactive co-construction, promoting the democratisation of exchanges and shared responsibility for the programme's educational content. IMPLICATIONS: Sustained institutional trust and long-term involvement have enabled patient partners to become central co-creators in the PARTENAIRES curriculum. Patients' transversal role fosters innovation and cross-disciplinary collaboration, illustrating that significant cultural change in IPE emerges through openness, adaptability and the time to grow together.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".