Elements and Definitions of Continuing Professional Development Leadership: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Leaders are being asked to transform the way that continuing professional development (CPD) is delivered to focus on better, safer, and higher quality care. However, there is scarce literature on CPD leadership. We set out to study what CPD leadership means and describe the competencies required for CPD leadership. METHODS: A scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension guidelines for scoping reviews guidelines was conducted. With librarian support, four databases were searched for publications related to leadership, medical education, and CPD. Publications were screened by two reviewers and three reviewers extracted data. RESULTS: Among 3886 publications, 46 were eligible for a full-text review and 13 met the final inclusion criteria. There was no agreed upon definition of CPD leadership and variable models and approaches to leadership in the literature. Contextual issues shaping CPD (eg, funding, training, and information technology) are evolving. We identified several attitudes and behaviors (eg, strategic thinking), skills (eg, collaboration), and knowledge (eg, organizational awareness) important to CPD leadership, but no established set of unique competencies. DISCUSSION: These results offer the CPD community a foundation on which competencies, models, and training programs can build. This work suggests the need to build consensus on what CPD leadership means, what CPD leaders do, and what they will need to create and sustain change. We suggest the adaptation of existing leadership frameworks to a CPD context to better guide leadership and leadership development programs.
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 | 0.093 | 0.244 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.054 | 0.047 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".