The 2020 JCEHP Award for Excellence in Research

The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions (JCEHP) Award for Excellence in Research recognizes outstanding original research contributions to the field of continuing professional development (CPD). The 2020 award has been given to Armson, Heather; Roder, Stefanie; Wakefield, Jacqueline; Eva, Kevin W. Toward Practice-Based Continuing Education Protocols: Using Testing to Help Physicians Update Their Knowledge. JCEHP. Fall 2020;40(4):248–256. The article will be free to access online for one year after the publication date of the award announcement. Because of the high standard of original research articles, the panellists felt that honorable mentions should also be given to the following articles: Lockyer, Jocelyn; DiMillo, Shanna; Campbell, Craig. An Examination of Self-Reported Assessment Activities Documented by Specialist Physicians for Maintenance of Certification. JCEHP. Winter 2020;40(1):19–26.; and Vallo Hult, Helena; Hansson, Anders; Gellerstedt, Martin. Digitalization and Physician Learning: Individual Practice, Organizational Context, and Social Norm. JCEHP. Fall 2020;40(4):220–227. Fourteen original research articles published in Volume 40 of JCEHP were eligible for the Award. The articles were produced in a broad range of countries (the United States, Canada, Sweden, Australia, Singapore, and the Netherlands) reflecting the international character of JCEHP. The type of research also reflected the diverse nature of the field of CPD with contributions focusing on quality improvement, patient safety, knowledge translation, continuing education, and faculty development, across a wide range of professions. THE REVIEW PROCESS A review panel was established and chaired by the Editor-in-Chief of JCEHP (Dr. Simon Kitto—nonvoting member) and composed of three voting representatives from the three owners of JCEHP: the Society of Academic Continuing Medical Education (Dr. Walter Tavares—Chair of the Scholarship Committee), Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions (Dr. Elizabeth Franklin—member, Alliance Research Committee), and the Association for Hospital Medical Education (Dr. Dave Pieper—past President). The Panel Applied the following Review Criteria during the Examination Process Research Problem The degree to which the question/objective/aim was sufficiently positioned in what is known about the existing challenges and current interests in the field of CPD. The proposed research problem was assessed for being topical, relevant, sufficiently supported by evidence, and clearly reported. Conceptual/Theoretical Framework The degree to which the research was sufficiently conceptualized, grounded in, or guided by an appropriate conceptual or theoretical framework. This included the rigorous selection, interpretation, positioning, and use of the framework. Quality of Research The degree to which the internal logic of the study was aligned with the problem being investigated. This criteria concerned how well the research question aligned with the choice and quality of the research design, the operational rigor related to methodology, reporting (eg, data collection, data analysis, use of tables, data presentation, clarity), and how inferences and interpretations were derived. Importance to the Field The extent to which the contribution served to advance the field of CPD. This included the capacity of the article to create change and to shape new and productive ways of thinking about CPD in ways that will contribute to incremental or large educational advances or impact on learners, health care systems, and patients. The panel members assessed each article using the above criteria on a scale of 1–25. The results were aggregated resulting in three finalists with narrative decision summaries of each article provided by each of the panellists. A panel discussion facilitated by the chair resulted in a unanimous decision to give the Award for Excellence to Armson and colleague's article, Toward Practice-Based Continuing Education Protocols: Using Testing to Help Physicians Update Their Knowledge. Each panellist provided their perspective on the strengths of the Award winner resulting in the generation of three thematic areas of agreement concerning the qualities of the study: (1) the robust methodological design, (2) the perceived relative ease of implementation, and (3) the potential impact on learner and patient outcomes. The following quotes from the panellists exemplify these themes. Robust Methodological Design “This is a very well written, designed and implemented study comparing the effects of taking a pre-test or reading a review article on learning and committing to improvement. The strengths of the design included having a control group and doing a crossover between the two interventions. The results tables were easy to understand and the differences between groups were clear.” “This study explored the use of testing as a way of improving CPD, more specifically (because we know testing enhances learning) physicians' relationship and interaction with testing. Based on a robust methodological approach, they reinforce existing literature and derive new implications as a result.” “This study finds the use of testing as an effective learning tool, and the pre-test as a way to improve what learners remember of the educational content. This very robust research provides evidence that CPD providers can enhance learning by including these simple components.” Ease of Implementation “This study offers the CPD community with very practical strategies on how to proceed that are theory informed and contextually situated in CPD. To the extent that any one study could create change and with that caveat in mind, as early as tomorrow, CPD educators should begin to consider using formative testing that includes appropriate prompts and feedback to improve learning. This is why this study should win the award.” “Implementation of a pre-test is not difficult and could be done in a much larger number of continuing education activities.” Impact on Learner and Patient Outcomes “This small change in a CPD activity, as illustrated in the study findings, can not only facilitate provider learning, but also be a factor in better patient outcomes due to the increased proportion of practice changes reported.” “The topic is extremely relevant and helpful to CME practitioners and may change the way some of us do continuing education.” Honorable Mentions The two honorable mention awardees articles were cited as sharing similar attributes (robust design and impact) to the Award winner and some additional complementary characteristics. In contrast to the core strength of the practicality of the CME intervention design of Armson et al's study, Lockyer et al's, study contributed strong empirical findings alongside a strong conceptual contribution to the improvement of physician maintenance of certification.“The state of affairs, paired with empirically derived and supported shifts in how we should structure practice-embedded CPD, is why this study deserves honorable mention. This study makes a meaningful conceptual argument.” “This study, anchored in educational and psychological theory, examined a large population of providers and a multitude of assessment activities. The findings are very useful to the CE provider, as they confirm earlier research regarding peer/colleague/supervisor discussion of content and data as a strong indication of practice change.” Vallo Hult et al's, article on digitalization of physician learning complements the practical and conceptual nature of the aforementioned articles, by making a methodologically robust and topical contribution to the CPD literature.“This paper examined the correlation among various factors and use of information technology for physician learning. The study was designed to more objectively analyze previous work based on qualitative results. The methods included a number of conceptual factors involved in technology learning and assessment. It is interesting that one of the main conclusions was that social influence and increasing collegial expectations for digital collaboration might improve physician learning. This seems similar to one of the conclusions of the (Lockyer et al) paper.” “This article was not only very topical, but also well written—problem clearly stated and the literature review was strategic and clear. The theoretical model for the study, based on previous qualitative studies was evident to the reader. This research is a springboard for further use of ICT in the CPD/CME environment and does a good job of stating what needs to be explored further in this space.” “With information technology being necessary as complexity of practice grows, attention to the ‘contextual factors and social consequences of new technologies’ must be considered. The potential line of inquiry this study stimulates is why this deserves honorable mention. This is certainly a topical issue.” The Editor-in-Chief would like to thank the panellists for their conscientious work in adjudicating the award. In addition, the JCEHP 2020 Award for Excellence in Research panel would like to thank the Tri-Group owners of JCEHP—the Society of Academic Continuing Medical Education, Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, and the Association for Hospital Medical Education—for their ongoing support of research excellence in CPD.

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.