Factors Influencing Acceptability and Perceived Impacts of a Mandatory ePortfolio Implemented by an Occupational Therapy Regulatory Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of ePortfolios has been implemented in several regulatory organizations to encourage clinicians' engagement in continuing professional development (CPD). However, their use has achieved mixed success, and multiple personal and contextual factors can influence their impacts on practice change. The aim of this study was to identify which factors influence the acceptability and perceived impacts of an ePortfolio implemented by an occupational therapy regulatory organization in one Canadian province. METHOD: A cross-sectional online survey design was used. The survey was sent to registered occupational therapists in Quebec. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to identify factors influencing acceptability and outcomes: ease of use, satisfaction, impact on implementation of the CPD plan, and competence improvement. RESULTS: The survey was fully completed by 546 participants. Factors significantly influencing the ePortfolio acceptability and perceived impacts were attitude toward and familiarity with the portfolio, confidence in reflective skills, engagement in the CPD plan, and desire for feedback. Time spent completing the ePortfolio and the fact of completing it in teams were negatively associated with the outcomes. DISCUSSION: Shaping more favorable user attitudes, helping users recognize and experience the tool's benefits for their practice, and fostering confidence in their reflective skills are important factors that can be addressed to improve ePortfolio acceptability and outcomes. Contextual factors, such as time spent completing the ePortfolio and completing it in teams, seem to reflect greater difficulty with using the tool. Study findings can contribute to improving ePortfolio implementation in the CPD context.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".