A26 Disaster Preparedness and Management through Interprofessional Education: A Simulation-Based Study Among Health Profession Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Interprofessional education (IPE) equips health profession students for collaborative practice [1]. Simulation-based IPE allows students from different professions to learn together in simulated scenarios, enhancing teamwork and patient care [2]. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of a simulation-based IPE activity focused on disaster preparedness and management for health profession students [3]. Methods: An IPE simulation focused on disaster preparedness and management phases (mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery) was conducted for undergraduate health profession students. Students, assessors, and standardized patients (SPs) participated. Data was collected from students using the Team Perception of Collaborative Care, from assessors using the Modified McMaster-Ottawa Scale, and from SPs using the Standardized Patient Team Evaluation Instrument. Results: Thirty-three students, 13 assessors, and 8 SPs participated. Students self-reported positive perceptions of teamwork, with over 90% agreement across all domains. Assessors’ ratings corroborated these findings, with over 80% of students scoring at or above expectations in all domains. While not statistically significant, a trend towards improved performance across cases suggested a learning curve effect. Students with prior IPE experience demonstrated significantly better performance, with a mean score of 2.42 (95% CI: 2.24-2.60) compared to 2.06 (95% CI: 1.80-2.33) for students without prior IPE experience. Similarly, students who completed a practice placement achieved a higher mean score of 2.48 (95% CI: 2.30-2.65) compared to 2.12 (95% CI: 1.86-2.37) for those who did not. SPs evaluations aligned with these positive trends, with over 70% strongly agreeing or agreeing on positive interprofessional practice behaviors. Discussion: This study provides evidence supporting the integration of IPE into health profession curricula to enhance disaster preparedness and interprofessional collaboration. Ethics Statement: As the submitting author, I can confirm that all relevant ethical standards of research and dissemination have been met. Additionally, I can confirm that the necessary ethical approval has been obtained, where applicable. References 1. Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education. What is Interprofessional Education? [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2025 Apr 27]. Available from: https://www.caipe.org/about 2. World Health Organization. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2025 Apr 27]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/framework-for-action-on-interprofessional-education-collaborative-practice 3. Alfred D, Chilton J, Connor D, Deal B, Fountain R, Hensarling J, et al. Preparing for disasters: education and management strategies explored. Nurse Educ Pract. 2015;15(1):82–9.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".