Exploring and Evaluating Interprofessional Training: A Brief Overview

This paper provides a general overview of an upcoming evaluation plan with JCIPE that began this fall. This plan was constructed primarily because although numerous training institutions have constructed and implemented various courses and programs designed to provide students with extensive learning opportunities steeped in interprofessional education (IPE)1-3, projects employing longitudinal and/or mixed-methods approaches to understanding the multi-faceted barriers to and facilitators of IPE within health professions training have been quite limited. Similarly, few evaluation plans have attempted to unearth if and how students are exposed to interprofessional values outside of IPE-specific programs or how these team-based values may translate to students’ later professional practice

A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study of IPE Students\u27 Perceptions of Health Profession Groups: Revisiting the Contact Hypothesis

Abstract Despite the increasing momentum and integration of Interprofessional Education (IPE) programs into various health professions curriculum, the findings of previous research are mixed regarding the impact these programs have on dismantling or even stifling students’ negative stereotypes of health professions. Of those studies that find “positive” shifts in students’ perceptions, elements of the Contact Hypothesis are frequently employed to support these apparent shifts. However, there is often little to no attention paid to how intergroup contact within IPE programs actually impacts students’ stereotypes. To examine if students’ attitudes towards other health professions shifted following participation in an IPE program 528 students from six different health profession training programs completed the Student Stereotypes Rating Questionnaire (SSRQ) assessing their perceptions/stereotypes of their own and other health professions at the beginning and end of a two-year IPE program. Following the finding that students’ attitudes did indeed positively shift, interviews with 20 students were analyzed to explore how contact within the program may have impacted their perceptions. The findings lend support for the Contact Hypothesis and the authors argue that opportunities to informally interact and socialize may be more influential on students’ attitudes than the formal aspects of IPE programs, and that models of cognitive representation that emphasis more personalization (as opposed to differentiation) may be more effective tools in examining how intergroup contact within IPE affects students’ stereotypes. Measureable Learning Objectives: a.) Provide a better understanding of the Contact Hypothesis and models of cognitive representations, and how these approaches can be utilized effectively in IPE research, b.) Provide an example of effective and efficient mixed-methods research in evaluating IPE programs, and c.) Provide tools (both methodological and theoretical) to better assess IPE outcomes

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Elements that may Impact Students’ Perceptions of and Willingness to Internalize Interprofessional Education Program Goals

ABSTRACT An increasing number of health profession education institutions are constructing and implementing Interprofessional Education (IPE) programs. Various evaluative efforts are therefore underway to explore students’ perceptions of these programs, nuances of the interdisciplinary interactions within programs, and the potential long-term impact of these programs on students’ mentality towards team-based, collaborative care. This study, however, examines how elements specific to and outside of an IPE program may impact students’ perceptions of the program and their willingness to engage with prominent aims and goals of IPE. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 students from varying disciplines at the end of years one and two of a 2-year IPE program. Data were analyzed utilizing a multi-step inductive and deductive process to identity consistent patterns in students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward the program from year one to year two. The data show that although students felt they understood the value and importance of interprofessionality and team-based care, there were elements that were intrinsic (assignments, time constraints, level of accountability) and extrinsic (anticipatory socialization, lack of professional identity) to the IPE program that impacted their perceptions of the program, and that these perceptions, in turn, affected their level of commitment to the program. Further examination of these factors suggests that students struggled specifically with how their program negotiated: a.) fostering understanding of each specific discipline/profession as well as advocating for team-based care, and b.) the informal vs formal nature of the program. The findings of this study shed a valuable new light on how elements related to an IPE program’s structure and implementation as well as factors outside of the program may affect and influence the acculturation of person-centered team-based care. Contact: Barret Michalec Dept. of Sociology University of Delaware Newark, DE (19716), USA [email protected]

The Youngest Victims: Children and Youth Affected by War

In 1989, the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child declared, “[state parties] shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.” In addition to attempting to secure the welfare of children in armed conflict, the Convention went on to ban the recruitment and deployment of children during armed conflict. Despite the vast majority of sovereign nations signing and ratifying this agreement, this treaty, unfortunately, has not prevented children and youth from witnessing, becoming victims of, or participating in political, ethnic, religious, and cultural violence across the past three decades. This chapter offers an “ecological perspective” on the psychosocial consequences of exposure to the trauma of war-related violence and social disruption

The Elephant in the Room: Examining the Connections between Humility and Social Status

Humility is most frequently discussed as a socially-valuable trait, and being perceived as humble is generally considered beneficial.  Although there has been extensive scholarship expounding the concept of humility, previous work has yet to fully examine the role(s) of social status and stratification in regards to the perception of others’ humility and being humble.  In this sense, there is an elephant in the room that must be acknowledged in order to advance humility theory.  In this paper, we provide brief overviews of humility, social status and stratification, and utilize expectation states theory as a flashlight to explore the potential connections between humility and social status from a more sociological perspective. We then showcase where the “elephant” may be hiding in the humility literature (focusing specifically on race and gender), attempting to shed light on potential next steps for future researc

The Elephant in the Room: Examining the Connections Between Humility and Social Status

Humility is most frequently discussed as a socially-valuable trait, and being perceived as humble is generally considered beneficial. Although there has been extensive scholarship expounding the concept of humility, previous work has yet to fully examine the role(s) of social status and stratification in regards to the perception of others' humility and being humble. In this sense, there is an elephant in the room that must be acknowledged in order to advance humility theory. In this paper, we provide brief overviews of humility, social status and stratification, and utilize expectation states theory as a flashlight to explore the potential connections between humility and social status from a more sociological perspective. We then showcase where the “elephant” may be hiding in the humility literature (focusing specifically on race and gender), attempting to shed light on potential next steps for future researc

Remote and interdisciplinary research in surgical knowledge production.

BACKGROUND: Surgical knowledge production has changed dramatically in the last 30 y, moving away from investigations by individual surgeon researchers and toward remote and interdisciplinary research. We investigated how surgeons make decisions about engaging in research and identify motivators, facilitators, and barriers to conducting research in an increasingly challenging environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews with surgeons from academic medical centers across the United States. We asked participants to describe their experiences and opinions regarding remote and interdisciplinary collaborations. RESULTS: Of 64 surgeon researchers invited, 21 (33%) agreed and participated in semistructured interviews. Each interview lasted an average (standard deviation) of 29 min (12). Surgeons were motivated by both internal and external factors, including some that might be identified as barriers. The internal desire to improve care and the need for collaboration to address increasingly complex questions requiring larger samples sizes emerged as most significant to interview participants. Social networks were identified as the dominant facilitator of multisite research, with technology playing a supporting role. Barriers to remote and interdisciplinary research ranged from individual, micro level barriers, through structural barriers that include institutional level challenges and competing priorities, to macrolevel system and policy-level barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons clearly recognize the importance of high-quality research aligned with current paradigms of clinical care and are using remote and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve the quality of the science they produce and align their work with the demand for increasingly high levels of evidence