Interprofessional collaboration competency development in healthcare students during clinical placements in the time of COVID-19: a mixed methods systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented challenges to the clinical education of healthcare students. Although alternative clinical placements were developed and introduced, it is unclear whether students successfully acquired interprofessional competencies required to be collaborative practice-ready healthcare workers. We examined interprofessional collaboration competency acquisition from adapted and alternative clinical placements that were made available to pre-qualification healthcare students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information searches from online databases and supplementary sources identified 20 articles that met criteria. Student perceptions indicate that these alternative placements supported the learning of interprofessional collaboration competencies. Outcomes mapped against the updated Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative Competency Framework indicate that the most frequently reported interprofessional collaboration competency was team communication and the least reported were collaborative leadership and team differences/disagreements processing. Although gains in interprofessional collaboration competencies were reported across the studies, their methodological shortcomings make it difficult to determine whether alternative placements (e.g. online and telephone-based) were better or comparable to traditional placements (i.e. with face-to-face interactions), for interprofessional collaboration competency development. These findings suggest the need for further research assessing the effectiveness and sustainability of alternative placement models. A greater understanding of clinical placement alternatives could inform educational practices in future pandemics or other unprecedented events.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".