InspirE5: A Participatory, Internationally Informed Framework for Health Humanities Curricula in Health Professions Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background It is important for health professions educators to consider not just the potential benefits humanities education can contribute but the central learning outcomes health humanities education can achieve, how achievement of this learning can be meaningfully measured or assessed and the effectiveness of learning strategies evaluated. This research asked, what could an internationally informed curriculum and evaluation framework for the implementation of health humanities for health professions education look like? Methods The participatory action research (PAR) approach applied was based on three iterative phases 1. Perspective sharing and collaboration building. 2. Evidence gathering 3. Development of an internationally relevant curriculum and evaluation framework for health humanities. A series of online meetings, virtual workshops and follow up communications produced the curriculum framework documents. Results Following the perspective sharing and evidence gathering, the InspirE5 model of curriculum design and evaluation framework for health humanities in health professions education was developed through five principle foci: Environment : Learning and political environment surrounding the program. Expectations: Graduate capabilities that are clearly articulated for all, integrated into core curricula and relevant to graduate destinations and associated professional standards. Experience: Learning and teaching experience that supports learners' achievement of the stated graduate capabilities. Evidence: Assessment of learning (formative and/or summative) with feedback for learners around the development of capabilities. Enhancement: Program evaluation of the students and teachers learning experiences and achievement. In all, 11 Graduate Capabilities for Health Humanities were suggested along with a summary of common core content as well as some guiding principles for assessment of learning. Discussion Our experience and recommendations for Health Humanities curricula and evaluation may be a catalyst for new design, research and teaching. Systematic approaches to assessment of learning are needed to support transformative, integrated health humanities teaching in health professions education, while remaining sensitive to and adaptive for local contexts. This curriculum and evaluation framework provides a foundation for our shared vision for person-centred collaborative action directed at humane healthcare of significant local, international and global health issues.
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 | 0.176 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".