Review: interactive, but not didactic, continuing medical education is effective in changing physician performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1999) JAMA 282, 867. Davis D, Thomson O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, et al. . Impact of formal continuing medical education. Do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? . Sep 1; . : . –74 . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How effective are formal continuing medical education (CME) interventions in changing physician performance and health care outcomes? Studies were identified by using the Research and Development Resource Base in CME at the University of Toronto, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, Medline (1993 to January 1999), CINAHL, ERIC, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, and PsycINFO and by searching bibliographies of relevant papers. Studies were selected if they were randomised controlled trials; if they used formal CME interventions of a didactic, an interactive, or a mixed didactic and interactive nature; if they objectively determined either physician performance in the workplace or health care outcomes, or both; and if ≥50% of the participants were practising … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.aulast%253DDavis%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%26rft.volume%253D282%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D867%26rft.epage%253D874%26rft.atitle%253DImpact%2Bof%2BFormal%2BContinuing%2BMedical%2BEducation%253A%2BDo%2BConferences%252C%2BWorkshops%252C%2BRounds%252C%2Band%2BOther%2BTraditional%2BContinuing%2BEducation%2BActivities%2BChange%2BPhysician%2BBehavior%2Bor%2BHealth%2BCare%2BOutcomes%253F%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.282.9.867%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10478694%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.282.9.867&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10478694&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F5%2F2%2F64.1.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000082272200013&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
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 | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".