The Majority of Accredited Continuing Professional Development Activities Do Not Target Clinical Behavior Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Continually improving patient outcomes requires that physicians start new behaviors, stop old behaviors, or adjust how they practice medicine. Continuing professional development (CPD) is the method most commonly used by physicians to improve their knowledge and skills. However, despite regular physician attendance at these activities, change in clinical behavior is rarely observed. The authors sought to identify which of Bloom's domains (cognitive, affective, or psychomotor) are targeted by the learning objectives of CPD activities offered by medical associations, regulatory bodies, and academic institutions in the province of Quebec, Canada. METHOD: The authors evaluated the objectives of 110 accredited CPD activities offered to physicians and other health professionals from November 2012 to March 2013. The objectives of each activity were extracted and classified into learning domains using Bloom's taxonomy. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of the learning objectives analyzed targeted the cognitive domain, which consists of six levels of increasing complexity: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Half (47%) targeted knowledge and comprehension, whereas only 26% aimed to improve skills in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Most accredited CPD activities within this sample were generally not designed to promote clinical behavior change because the focus of these activities was on remembering and understanding information instead of preparing physicians to put knowledge into practice by analyzing information, evaluating new evidence, and planning operations that lead to behavior change. Educators and CPD providers should take advantage of well-established theories of health professional behavior change, such as sociocognitive theories, to develop their activities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".