Permanent Education for Health Professionals during COVID-19: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The pandemic of COVID-19 was declared by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. With this, the world had to adapt to a new way of carrying out permanent health education. The objective was to map what the national and international literature currently has to say about how continuing education is being provided to health professionals in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methodology: This is a scoping review, thus, the PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used for its elaboration. The search was performed in several stages, by four independent reviewers, following the criteria of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), in the following databases: PubMed, Science Direct, LILACS and MEDLINE (via BVS). The descriptors used were "Continuing Education", "health" and "COVID-19". Results: Ten articles dealing with the proposed theme were included and analyzed in this review. The year of publication ranged from 2020 to 2021. Six articles were conducted in Brazil, one in Poland, one in China and one in Canada. Five of them were in Portuguese and five in English. Nine studies are descriptive experience reports and one theoretical-descriptive study of actions performed to promote HPS. The most prevalent research site was the Brazilian Basic Health Units (BHU), but it also occurred in tertiary hospitals. It was possible to identify several measures for continuing education in Brazil and worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: The strategies employed were effective and produced a positive impact on the communities employed. We encourage actions like those presented to be carried out within health services, within the reality and singularity of each place, in order to provide updates and continuity of education in health.
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 | 0.017 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".