Use of The CPD-Reaction Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential for physicians to maintain and enhance their knowledge, competence, skills, and performance. Web-based CPD plays an essential role. However, validated theory-informed measures of their impact are lacking. The CPD-REACTION questionnaire is a validated theory-informed tool that evaluates the impact of CPD activities on clinicians’ behavioral intentions. Objective: We aimed to review the use of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire, which measures the impact of CPD activities on health professionals’ intentions to change clinical behavior. Study Design: We conducted a systematic review informed by the Cochrane review methodology. We searched eight databases from January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2021. Gray literature was identified using Google Scholar and Research Gate. Setting: Eligibility criteria included all health care professionals, any study design, and participants’ completion of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire either before, after, or before and after a CPD activity. Study selection, data extraction, and study quality evaluation were independently performed by two reviewers. Outcome: We extracted data on characteristics of studies, the CPD activity, and CPD-REACTION use. Instrument: We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Results: Overall, 65 citations were eligible and referred to 52 primary studies. The number of primary studies reporting the use of CPD-REACTION has increased continuously since 2014 from 1 to 16 publications per year (2021). It is available in English, French, Spanish, and Dutch. Most of the studies were conducted in Canada (30/52, 58%). Furthermore, 40 different clinical behaviors were identified. The most common CPD format was e-learning (34/52, 65%). The original version of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire was used in 31 of 52 studies, and an adapted version in 18 of 52 studies. In addition, 31% (16/52) of the studies measured both the pre- and post-intervention scores. In 22 studies, CPD providers were university-based. Most studies targeted interprofessional groups of health professionals (31/52, 60%). Conclusions: The use of CPD-REACTION has increased rapidly and across a wide range of clinical behaviors and formats, including a web-based format.
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 | 0.123 | 0.212 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".