MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364378214 · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04215-2

The association of physician assistant/associate demographic and practice characteristics with perceptions of value of certification

2023· article· en· W4364378214 on OpenAlexaff
Andrzej Kozikowski, Dawn Morton-Rias, Kasey Puckett, Colette Jeffery, Sheila Mauldin, Joshua Goodman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsNational Capital Commission123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationLicensureCompetence (human resources)SpecialtyFamily medicineMedicineLogistic regressionDescriptive statisticsMedical educationOrdered logitCredentialingPsychologySocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To determine physician assistant/associate (PA) perceptions of the value of certification and explore how they vary across demographic and practice characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between March and April 2020 with PAs participating in the longitudinal pilot program for recertification administered by the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants (NCCPA). The survey was distributed to 18,147 PAs, of which 10,965 participated (60.4% response rate). In addition to descriptive statistics, chi-square tests were conducted on demographics and specialty to examine if perceptions of value of certification (1 global and 10 items measuring specific domains) were associated with a particular PA profile. A series of fully adjusted multivariate logistic regressions were performed, exploring the relationship between PA characteristics and the value of certification items. RESULTS: Most PAs strongly agreed/agreed that certification helps with fulfilling licensure requirements (9,578/10,893; 87.9%), helps with updating medical knowledge (9,372/10,897; 86.0%), and provides objective evidence of continued competence (8,875/10,902; 81.4%). The items receiving the lowest percentage of responses for strongly agreeing/agreeing were for certification providing no value (1,925/10,887; 17.7%), helping with professional liability insurance (5,076/10,889; 46.6%), and competing with other providers for clinical positions (5,661/10,905; 51.9%). Age 55 and older and practicing in dermatology and psychiatry were among the strongest predictors of less favorable views. PAs from underrepresented in medicine (URiM) backgrounds had more positive perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings indicate that PAs value certification; however, perceptions varied by demographics and specialties. PAs who were younger, from URiM backgrounds, and practicing in primary care specialties had among the most favorable perspectives. Continued feedback monitoring is critical in ensuring certification is relevant and meaningful in supporting PAs across demographics and specialties. Measuring PA perceptions of the value of certification is essential to understanding how to support the PA profession's current and future credentialing needs and those who license and hire PAs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical EducationSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207