Applying the ADDIE—Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation—Instructional Design Model to Continuing Professional Development for Primary Care Physicians in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As professionals, family physicians are obliged to remain current on advances and trends in medicine and health care delivery. This is usually achieved through engagement in continuing professional development. Instructional design is a systematic method of development of education and training programs for improved learner performance. ADDIE is an instructional systems design model for building effective education and training in five phases: analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to introduce a professional development program for primary care physicians using the ADDIE instructional design model. Methods: Program requirements were defined using a needs assessment questionnaire and consultation observations. Interactive sessions were designed and developed based on the analysis results. The sessions were evaluated with interim and final feedback forms, a final problem-based questionnaire, a self-assessment questionnaire, and focus groups. Results: Scores on the final knowledge assessment were lower than expected. However, at least 50% of participants self-reported their learning improvement as “great” for 16 out of 23 topics. Focus group feedback was generally positive but also identified areas for improvement. Conclusion: Applying a structured instructional design model for creating professional development program for physicians is a fruitful, relevant experience in primary healthcare. 1) Continuing professional development (CPD) is an essential method to help physicians maintain and further develop knowledge and expertise; 2) The ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) model provides an established and useful structure for creating effective CPD programs; 3) The ADDIE process ensures that physicians’ appropriate learning needs are met effectively; 4) The evaluation phase of the ADDIE process provides feedback that can lead to improvement in the CPD program’s future iterations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".