Rehabilitation Professionals' Satisfaction With Continuing Education Delivered at a Distance Using Different Technologies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines learner satisfaction with technologies used for distance delivery of continuing education across 10 Canadian sites: nine within the province of Alberta and one in Nunavut Territory. The technologies were satellite (or videotapes of) broadcasts, videoconferencing, and web-based technology. Learner satisfaction was evaluated using questionnaires. A survey on general issues related to continuing education was developed and mailed to random samples of health professionals and a convenience sample of stakeholders. The learners (n = 1,141) represented 20 types of health service providers who had attended at least one session delivered via satellite, videotape, or videoconferencing. Seven individuals completed the web-based course. Overall, the majority of participants were satisfied or very satisfied. In general, satellite delivery was received more favorably compared with videotapes of the same content. A total of 350 (33% response rate) health professionals and 37 (50% response rate) stakeholders returned the surveys. Nearly 50% of health professionals thought that clinical case presentations (rounds) were valuable to them, but over half of the stakeholders perceived that videotapes, rounds, and research seminars were valuable to health professionals. Ratings for the web-based course varied, indicating different learner characteristics. We conclude that it is possible to utilize multiple technologies to meet the continuing education needs of an interdisciplinary group of health service providers, but future research is needed to develop a framework for evaluating the usability of multiple existing and emerging technologies for distance education.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it