Effectiveness of Continuing Education in Long-Term Care: A Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This review of the literature examines the effectiveness of continuing education programs in long-term care facilities. DESIGN AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was made for evaluation studies and included computerized bibliographic databases, manual searches of journals, the bibliographies of retrieved articles, and information from key informants. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies met our selection criteria. Rigorous research in this area has been limited. Because of the lack of follow-up evaluation, there is minimal evidence that knowledge gained from training programs is sustained in the long term. Most studies do not consider organizational and system factors when planning and implementing training initiatives. This may account for difficulties encountered in the sustained transfer of knowledge to practice. IMPLICATIONS: There is a need for further rigorous research on the effectiveness of continuing education in long-term care, with systematic attention to the role of organizational and system factors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it