Best medical practices in social accountability and continuing professional development: A survey and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors surveyed Canadian medical schools to identify gaps in current continuing professional development (CPD) with reference to social accountability and compared the results to best practices identified in a literature review. The literature review identified 15 relevant articles. Several themes on best practices emerged. In a fundamental social contract with society, physicians receive privileges in return for responding to social needs. CPD is part of this contract. To meet the terms of the contract, CPD must be credible, unbiased and respond to social needs. Physicians have a responsibility to maintain quality; CPD is one tool to do that. CPD should be measured against values of relevance, quality, cost effectiveness, and equity. The survey asked all 17 Canadian medical schools to report CPD initiatives that respond to societal needs. Eleven schools responded with descriptions of 28 such initiatives. Most initiatives focused on values of quality and relevance; fewer focused on cost effectiveness. Most often, initiatives addressed medical expertise and interprofessional collaboration, least often health advocacy. Faculty initiated most initiatives, rather than students, community or society. These findings lead to recommendations for future directions of CPD.
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 | 0.030 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.050 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".