Interprofessional student-run primary health clinics: implications for pharmacy education in Scotland.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction \nInterprofessional student run primary health care clinics have been a flagship model of health professional education in Canada for many years. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is support for implementing this educational model in the United Kingdom and to highlight the implications for pharmacy education in Scotland. \n \nMethod \nA cross-sectional postal survey of 3000 randomly selected citizens of Aberdeen city and shire, Scotland, aged 18 years and over. \n \nResults \nOut of the 824 questionnaires that were returned (response rate 27.5%) over half of respondents (62.4%; n=514) would consider accessing healthcare from a student led, walk in service. The range of services they expect to see include general health checks (60%; n=494); help for sexually transmitted diseases (57.5%; n=474); weight management (56.8%; n=468); smoking cessation (54.4%; n=448) and drug misuse services (47.2%; n=387). Concerns raised pertained to student ability; suitability for children and accessibility. Many comments pertained to the improvement of the current system by offering after-hours care. \n \nDiscussion \nThe positive response from the general public towards an interprofessional student run primary health care clinic in Aberdeen, suggest that this Canadian model of interdisciplinary health professional education would likely be a successful addition to the pharmacy curriculum in Scotland.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".