Journal of allied health · 2026
Facilitator Perceptions of Debriefing Virtual and Live Interprofessional Curriculum.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Edwards Shelby, Cadzow Renee, Bentley-Root Tracy, Ferro Heather
Аннотация
PURPOSE: With COVID-19, many professional programs required to offer interprofessional education (IPE) had to pivot to online delivery modalities. Post-pandemic, some returned to in-person sessions while others continued online. This qualitative study explored facilitator perceptions of the strengths and differences in debriefing IPE simulation sessions conducted both live and online during the same semester. Sessions entailed viewing and discussing pre-recorded video clips; facilitators were interviewed about their perceptions and observations. This is a follow up to a previously published report which found students did not perceive any significant differences between online and in-person IPE sessions.
METHODS: Facilitators were interviewed about their impressions of both IPE session types. Twelve facilitators from six professional programs participating in IPE engaged in one of three 90-minute interviews.
RESULTS: Thematic analysis was conducted using a consensus-building, inductive approach. Analysis revealed numerous themes, including what constituted high and low student engagement, perceptions facilitating both types of sessions, and observations for conducting IPE in future semesters.
DISCUSSION: Based on these results, facilitator-informed recommendations for running IPE curricula to better meet the needs of student learners emerged. "Lessons learned" to promote engagement and foster learning outcomes with both virtual and in-person IPE are presented for future consideration.
METHODS: Facilitators were interviewed about their impressions of both IPE session types. Twelve facilitators from six professional programs participating in IPE engaged in one of three 90-minute interviews.
RESULTS: Thematic analysis was conducted using a consensus-building, inductive approach. Analysis revealed numerous themes, including what constituted high and low student engagement, perceptions facilitating both types of sessions, and observations for conducting IPE in future semesters.
DISCUSSION: Based on these results, facilitator-informed recommendations for running IPE curricula to better meet the needs of student learners emerged. "Lessons learned" to promote engagement and foster learning outcomes with both virtual and in-person IPE are presented for future consideration.