Canadian interprofessional education: Publicly available information and educator perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional Education (IPE) offered by Canadian post-secondary institutions has seen considerable variation over the years. While IPE remains strong at some institutions, others have scaled back on their support. The purpose of this study was to appraise the current state of IPE in Canada. Toward this aim, this study consisted of an environmental scan of the websites of Canadian universities and colleges to identify publicly available information related to their IPE offerings and interviews with 16 faculty. Informed by Basil Berstein's sociology of education, a qualitative content analysis was performed to analyze the interview data and descriptive statistics and Fisher's Exact test was completed to analyze quantitative data derived from the web scan. This study identified 102 Canadian post-secondary institutions that offer IPE events/workshops, courses, and/or institution-wide programs. Data related to IPE curricula, pedagogy, and evaluation suggested three threats to collaboration when designing IPE curricula: 1) IPE emphasizing clinical over collaborative skills; 2) a lack of collaboration between faculty and educational experts when designing IPE; and 3) a lack of representation in IPE materials of the diverse professions involved in IPE. Relating findings to Azzam and colleague's model of sustainable IPE, the authors recommend that additional consideration be paid to the influence frameworks produced by national and global governing organizations, that more research is needed to fill gaps in our understanding of student-focused IPE pedagogy and how IPE is evaluated, and that praxis (putting IPE theory into practice) is necessary to mitigate threats to IPE sustainability. • 67 professions participate in IPE, but learning materials reflect fewer professions. • Prioritizing clinical skills over collaboration is a threat to IPE sustainability. • IPE frameworks by national and global organizations support IPE sustainability. • Gaps exist in understanding student-focused IPE pedagogy and how IPE is evaluated. • Collaboration between faculty and educational experts puts IPE into practice.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | medium |
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".