The Relationship Between Physician Participation in Continuing Professional Development Programs and Physician In-Practice Peer Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between physicians' performance, as evaluated through in-practice peer assessments, and their participation in continuing professional development (CPD). METHOD: The authors examined the predictive effects of participating in the CPD programs of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada one year before in-practice peer assessments conducted by the medical regulatory authority in Ontario, Canada, in 2008-2009. Two multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine whether physicians who reported participating in any CPD and group-based, assessment-based, and/or self-directed CPD activities were more or less likely to receive satisfactory assessments than physicians who had not. All models were adjusted for the effects of sex, age, specialty certification, practice location, number of patient visits per week, hours worked per week, and international medical graduate status. RESULTS: A total of 617 physicians were included in the study. Analysis revealed that physicians who reported participating in any CPD activities were significantly more likely (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5; P = .021) to have satisfactory assessments than those who had not. In addition, physicians participating in group-based CPD activities were more likely to have satisfactory assessments than those who did not (OR = 2.4; P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: There is encouraging evidence supporting a positive predictive association between participating in CPD and performance on in-practice peer assessments. The findings have potential implications for policies which require physicians to participate in programs of lifelong learning.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".