Continuing professional development – global perspectives: synopsis of a workshop held during the International Association of Dental Research meeting in Gothenburg, Sweden, 2003. Part 2: regulatory and accreditation systems and evidence for improving the performance of the dental team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is the second in a series of two that report on continuing professional development (CPD). Details of the informants and the methodologies used were reported in the first paper. This paper reports the data and information presented on the topics of regulatory and accreditation systems for CPD and evidence that CPD improves the performance of the oral health team. By June 2003, participation in CPD was mandatory in most of the states of the USA, all Canadian Provinces, the UK and Latvia and was likely to become mandatory in a number of other countries in the near future. A variety of accreditation systems were reported including collecting CPD points, which in some countries were weighted depending on the type of CPD activity, and re-certification examinations. Very few studies for the effectiveness of dental CPD were identified. However, in general it was concluded that there is little evidence for the effectiveness of CPD for the oral health team. The main recommendation from this study is that a systematic review of the effectiveness of CPD in improving the performance of the oral health team and patient based outcomes be undertaken. A range of other research questions was also identified including: how can CPD be best matched to clinicians' needs rather than demands?
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".