Evaluating the impact of continuing professional development courses on physician behavioral intention: a pre-post study with follow-up at six months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuing professional development (CPD) for health professionals includes educational activities to maintain or improve skills. We evaluated the impact of a series of CPD courses by identifying factors influencing physicians' intention to adopt targeted behaviors and assessing self-reported behavior adoption six months later. METHODS: In this pre-post study, eligible participants attended at least one in-person course at the Fédération des Médecins Spécialistes du Québec annual meeting in November 2019. Before and afterwards, participants completed CPD-REACTION, a validated questionnaire based on Godin's integrated model for health professional behavior change that measures intention and psychosocial factors influencing intention. We used Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare pre- and post-course intention scores and linear regression analyses to identify factors influencing intention. We also compared the post-course intention scores of participants reporting a behavior change six months later with the scores of those reporting no behavior change six months later. Qualitative data was collected only six months after courses and responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: A total of 205/329 course attendees completed CPD-REACTION (response rate 62.3%). Among these participants, 158/329 (48%) completed the questionnaire before CPD courses, 129/329 (39.2%) only after courses and 47/329 (14.3%) at 6 months. Study population included 192 physicians of whom 78/192(40.6%) were female; 59/192(30.7%) were between 50 and 59 years old; and 72/192 (37.5%) were surgical specialist physicians. Mean intention scores before (n = 158) and after (n = 129) courses were 5.74(SD = 1.52) and 6.35(SD = 0.93) respectively. Differences in mean (DM) intention before and afterwards ranged from - 0.31(p = 0.17) to 2.25(p = 0.50). Multivariate analysis showed that beliefs about capabilities (β = 0.15, p = 0.001), moral norm (β = 0.75, p < 0.0001), and beliefs about consequences (β = 0.11, p = 0.04) influenced post-course intention. Post-course intention was correlated with behavior six months later (DM = 0.63; p = 0.02). Qualitative analysis showed that facilitators to behavior adoption after six months were most often related to the TDF domains of beliefs about capabilities. Most frequent barriers to adoption related to lack of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, scores for intention to adopt targeted behaviors increased after the courses. CPD providers could increase participants' intention by including interventions that emphasize beliefs about capabilities, moral norm and beliefs about consequences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".