Exploring Systemic Influences on Data-Informed Learning: Document Review of Policies, Procedures, and Legislation from Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the support for and benefits of data-driven learning, physician engagement is variable. This study explores systemic influences of physician use of data for performance improvement in continuing professional development (CPD) by analyzing and interpreting data sources from organizational and institutional documents. METHODS: The document analysis is the third phase of a mixed-methods explanatory sequential study examining cultural factors that influence data-informed learning. A gray literature search was conducted for organizations both in Canada and the United States. The analysis contains nonparticipant observations from professional learning bodies and medical specialty organizations with established roles within the CPD community known to lead and influence change in CPD. RESULTS: Sixty-two documents were collected from 20 Canadian and American organizations. The content analysis identified the following: (1) a need to advocate for data-informed self-assessment and team-based learning strategies; (2) privacy and confidentiality concerns intersect at the point of patient data collection and physician-generated outcomes and need to be acknowledged; (3) a nuanced data strategy approach for each medical specialty is needed. DISCUSSION: This analysis broadens our understanding of system-level factors that influence the extent to which health information custodians and physicians are motivated to engage with data for 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 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 | 0.111 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".