MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318913049 · doi:10.1097/ceh.0000000000000470

Exploring the Study of Simulation as a Continuing Professional Development Strategy for Physicians

2022· article· en· W4318913049 on OpenAlexaff
Walter Tavares, Dominique Piquette, Dorothy Luong, Michelle Chiu, Christopher Dyte, Kristin Fraser, Marcia Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLExperiential learningLifelong learningMEDLINERelevance (law)Continuing professional developmentMedicineIncentiveMedical educationContinuing medical educationContinuing educationPsychologyProfessional developmentNursingPedagogyPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Practicing physicians have the responsibility to engage in lifelong learning. Although simulation is an effective experiential educational strategy, physicians seldom select it for continuing professional development (CPD) for reasons that are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to explore existing evidence on simulation-based CPD and the factors influencing physicians' engagement in simulation-based CPD. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature on simulation-based CPD included MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases. Studies involving the use of simulation for practicing physicians' CPD were included. Information related to motivations for participating in simulation-based CPD, study objectives, research question(s), rationale(s), reasons for using simulation, and simulation features was abstracted. RESULTS: The search yielded 8609 articles, with 6906 articles undergoing title and abstract screening after duplicate removal. Six hundred sixty-one articles underwent full-text screening. Two hundred twenty-five studies (1993-2021) were reviewed for data abstraction. Only four studies explored physicians' motivations directly, while 31 studies described incentives or strategies used to enroll physicians in studies on simulation-based CPD. Most studies focused on leveraging or demonstrating the utility of simulation for CPD. Limited evidence suggests that psychological safety, direct relevance to clinical practice, and familiarity with simulation may promote future engagement. DISCUSSION: Although simulation is an effective experiential educational method, factors explaining its uptake by physicians as a CPD strategy are unclear. Additional evidence of simulation effectiveness may fail to convince physicians to participate in simulation-based CPD unless personal, social, educational, or contextual factors that shape physicians' motivations and choices to engage in simulation-based CPD are explored.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health ProfessionsSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207