Shifting the culture of continuing medical education: What needs to happen and why is it so difficult?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A revolution in health care is occurring as a result of changes in the practice of medicine and in society. These include changing demographics and the pattern of disease; new technologies; changes in health care delivery; increasing consumerism, patient empowerment, and autonomy; an emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency; and changing professional roles. The issues raised by these changes present challenges for the content and delivery of the whole continuum of medical education. The ways in which continuing medical education (CME) needs to respond to these challenges are outlined. The Informed Shared Decision Making (ISDM) Project at the University of British Columbia is used as a case study to illustrate some of the practical problems in providing CME that address these current trends in health care, is effective, and is attractive to physicians. Two particular problems are posed: how to respond to a demonstrated need when there is no perceived need on the part of physicians and how to enable change agents on the margins to develop allies and get ownership from stakeholders and opinion leaders on the inside. Two strategies for change are discussed: the substantive incorporation of CME into the continuum of medical education and the involvement of patients in the planning and delivery of CME. A final challenge is raised for the leaders of CME to define and agree what "shifting the culture of CME" means and to make a commitment of time and energy into making it happen.
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 | 0.024 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".