MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207922601 · doi:10.1111/medu.14678

Doctors' attitudes to maintenance of professional competence: A scoping review

2021· review· en· W3207922601 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anél Wiese, Emer Galvin, Irina Korotchikova, Deirdre Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Disengagement theoryMedicineBureaucracyLifelong learningNursingMedical educationPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePedagogySocial psychologyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Recent decades have seen the international implementation of programmes aimed at assuring the continuing competence of doctors. Maintenance of Professional Competence (MPC) programmes aim to encourage doctors' lifelong learning and ensure high-quality, safe patient care; however, programme requirements can be perceived as bureaucratic and irrelevant to practice, leading to disengagement. Doctors' attitudes and beliefs about MPC are critical to translating regulatory requirements into committed and effective lifelong learning. We aimed to summarise knowledge about doctors' attitudes to MPC to inform the development of MPC programmes and identify under-researched areas. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley, including sources of evidence about doctors' attitudes to MPC in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, and using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) as a guide. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five sources of evidence were included in the review. One hundred and two were peer-reviewed publications, and 23 were reports. Most were from the United Kingdom or the United States and used quantitative or mixed methods. There was agreement across jurisdictions that MPC is a good idea in theory but doubt that it achieves its objectives in practice. Attitudes to the processes of MPC, and their impact on learning and practice were mixed. The lack of connection between MPC and practice was a recurrent theme. Barriers to participation were lack of time and resources, complexity of the requirements and a lack of flexibility in addressing doctors' personal and professional circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the picture that emerged is that doctors are supportive of the concept of MPC but have mixed views on its processes. We highlight implications for research and practice arising from these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0190.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.457 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207