Research to practice in The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions : A thematic analysis of volumes 1 through 24
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Authors have stressed the importance of the broader contextual influences on practice improvement and learning and have expressed concern about gaps between research and practice. This implies a potential expansion of the knowledge base for continuing education in the health professions (CEHP) and an increased emphasis on research evidence for that knowledge. How has the content of The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions (JCEHP) reflected those changes? What are the implications for CEHP practitioners? METHODS: Based on all abstracts, tables of contents, and editorials, a thematic analysis was completed for volumes 1 through 24 of JCEHP. All texts were downloaded into qualitative analysis software and coded. Main code categories included demographics of articles, concepts relating to CEHP as a discipline, knowledge translation and outcomes-oriented continuing education, and theories and frameworks. Key themes were identified. RESULTS: Key themes include categories of topics included in JCEHP over the years, the increased prominence of research in JCEHP, a dual research evidence-to-practice gap, the professionalization of continuing education providers, and interdisciplinarity and the links with broader frameworks that have been proposed for CEHP. DISCUSSION: Two sets of research-to-practice gaps are portrayed in the journal: the gap between clinical research and practice and the gap between research and practice in CEHP. To close the first gap, authors have asserted that the second gap must be addressed, ensuring that CEHP practices themselves are evidence based, driven by theory-based research. This is a variation on prior debates regarding the need to define CEHP as a discipline, which uses the language of professionalization. The increased focus of continuing education on the contexts of health care providers' practices has multiplied the topics that are potentially relevant to CEHP practice.
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 | 0.060 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".