Caring moments within an interprofessional healthcare team ::children and adolescent perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients are now recognized as key partners to improve healthcare outcomes. Some organisations such as the WHO or the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC) encourage considering patients as partners in the interprofessional healthcare team. However, limited knowledge exists on patients’ perspective of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and of their role in the collaborative process, particularly in pediatric settings. The experiences and perspectives of patients regarding IPC have to be considered in order to fully understand the concept of IPC and integrate it into practice. This qualitative study aimed at gaining a better understanding of the perspective of children of IPC, how it affects their experiences of care and how they perceive their own role within the interprofessional team. Semi-structured interviews were used in the pediatric service of a Swiss university hospital, with ten children and adolescents aged between 11-17 years. The participants described the interactions they observed between nurses and physicians and provided insights into how they perceived the quality of that relationship. A respectful relationship between nurses and physicians may have improved the experience of a caring environment. The participants did not perceive their role to be pivotal into the interprofessional relationship. The findings of this study indicate that the interactions between healthcare professionals have an influence on the perspectives and experiences of the participants of their hospitalisation and of IPC. However, integrating children and adolescents into collaborative process will need a change of paradigm and beliefs regarding IPC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".