Introducing a mandatory continuing professional development system: an evaluation of pharmacists' attitudes and experiences in Northern Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To determine the extent of pharmacists' understanding of continuing professional development (CPD) prior to the implementation of a mandatory CPD system and the level of implementation of CPD, and to gain insight into pharmacists' attitudes towards the concept and the introduction of a mandatory CPD system. Setting Northern Ireland. Method A pre-piloted, self-administered, postal questionnaire was distributed to all registered pharmacists in Northern Ireland (n = 1821) in September 2004. A second mailing was carried out four weeks after the initial mailing. The questionnaire was divided into three sections to determine pharmacists' attitudes towards CPD, their understanding and experience of CPD and their attitudes towards sanctions and portfolio review. Key findings A response rate of 41% was achieved after two mailings. The majority of respondents supported the concept of CPD, with over 84% of respondents agreeing that it was essential for all practising pharmacists to engage in CPD. Over half of respondents (56%) reported regularly identifying their learning needs, but only a quarter (25%) maintained a CPD portfolio. Female pharmacists were more likely to maintain a CPD portfolio. Less than half of respondents (42%) indicated that sanctions should be in place for pharmacists who do not engage in CPD. Conclusion Overall, there was support for the concept of CPD but considerable variation was observed in the level of participation. A support system to encourage participation was favoured over sanctions for those pharmacists who did not engage in 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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".