Student and community insights on interprofessional health education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Northern Ontario, interprofessional education (IPE) is offered at the undergraduate level to improve collaborative healthcare delivery and access to services for vulnerable people. However, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) expressed concern about the lack of convincing evidence of the beneficial effects of IPE interventions leading to enhanced patient care. The IOM also noted an absence of comprehensive explanations regarding how students experience collaborative learning. My study aimed to understand whether the teaching of six interprofessional competencies to undergraduate students attending a northern academic institution enhances 1) perceived interprofessional collaboration and 2) students' awareness and sensitivity regarding the needs of vulnerable people. This mixed-methods study, integrating certain principles of action research, was conducted within the context of an IPE program involving 67 participants from two cohorts, 2019 and 2020. The sequential explanatory mixed-methods design included a retrospective prepost self-assessment survey and interviews with students and community members. The results showed that the IPE program supported an understanding of IPE within both classroom and community settings. Following participation in the IPE program, statistically significant differences in pre-post scores were identified for each of six interprofessional competency domains. Three forms of qualitative data supported the analysis; these included interviews with students, interviews with two community partners and students’ anonymous written reflections. Qualitative analysis revealed that classroom and community experiences enhanced the understanding of competencies and supported collaboration as well as connection amongst students from diverse disciplines. The analysis also revealed an enhanced awareness of community members' lived realities. The results demonstrated that students and the community benefitted from the educational IPE program. The participants showed increased collaboration and motivation to work with vulnerable populations. Participation in the IPE program also increased awareness, sensitivity, and advocacy for the diverse needs of community members. Student-led health promotion organizations emerged as a sustainable and flexible experience that enabled students to integrate various IPE experiences, advance collaboration and enhance their ability to work with underserved populations. Key limitations of the study stem from the impacts of COVID-19 which limited access to community partners. In addition, relatively small sample sizes for the quantitative surveys (n=44) limit the generalizability of these findings. Moreover, the study design did not allow for an examination of gender, age or cultural differences. Future studies could address these issues as well as examine the long-term effects of IPE education on post-graduation experiences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".