Interprofessional Education in Mental Health: Implications for Music therapy/Formation Interprofessionnelle En Santé Mentale : Conséquences Pour la Musicothérapie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health professionals, including music therapists, have historically studied and trained solely within the context and culture of their specific field. Interaction with other professions either in school or during placements has not traditionally been a required component of programs. While there have been calls for interaction in the past, its implementation has been complicated by organizational, systemic, and field-specific barriers (Copley, Allison, Hill, Moran, Tait & Day, 2007; Priest, Roberts, Dent, Blincoe, Lawton & Armstrong, 2008]. Recent changes in healthcare service delivery are advancing the role of education, by promoting teamwork training to address quality challenges in healthcare systems (Barr, Koppel, Reeves, Hammick & Freeth, 2005; Barrett, Curran, Glynn, Godwin, 2007; Meads & Ashcroft, 2005]. For example, the United Kingdom (UK) Department of Health has repeatedly called for better staff collaboration in health and social settings (Reeves, 2001). In Canada, reports such as the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation Synthesis on Interprofessional Collaboration and Quality Primary Healthcare (Barret, Curran, Glynn & Godwin, 2007), the Health Council of Canada's Inaugural Report (2005), the Kirby Report (2002), and the Romanow Report (2002) stress the need for greater collaboration involving teams of health providers.For the past two decades, collaboration has been promoted and endorsed to improve mental health service delivery in many nations, including the UK (Priest, Roberts, Dent, Blincoe, Lawton & Armstrong, 2008) and Canada (Barrett et al., 2007; Kates, 2002). With increased expectations of evidence- and outcome-based funding structures, the current move toward governmental regulation of music therapy in Canada, and the number of music therapists who identify themselves as mental health workers, the time has come to foster greater collaboration between music therapy and other mental health professions. To that end, should play a significant role in music therapy to better prepare for effective teamwork in clinical practice, and to work toward improving client outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to review the evidence of effectiveness in in mental health and to build the argument for implementing in pre-licensure music therapy education.Interprofessional Education and CollaborationLanguageAs stated by Barr et al. (2005), interprofessional is bedevilled by terminological inexactitude (p. xvii). The competing uses of 'interprofessional', 'multiprofessional', 'interdisciplinary', 'multidisciplinary', 'collaborative' and 'teamwork' has added a layer of complexity to accurately depicting, promoting and understanding education. In this paper, the term interprofessional education refers to the practice defined by the Centre for Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) as those occasions when members (or students) of two or more professions learn with, from and about one another to improve collaboration and the quality of care (Hammick, Freeth, Koppel, Reeves & Barr, 2007, p. 735).Interprofessional is differentiated from collaboration and collaborative practice in that it is:designed to promote the active participation of each discipline in patient care. It enhances patient- and familycentred goals and values, provides mechanisms for continuous communication among caregivers, optimizes staff participation in clinical decision making within and across disciplines and fosters respect for disciplinary contributions of all professions (Health Canada, 2003).To further clarify the distinction between and collaborative practice, one can view as improving learner outcomes, and collaborative practice as improving patient outcomes (D'amour & Oandasan, 2005). …
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".