An evaluation of dental continuing professional development programs in the USA and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This research explores continuing professional development (CPD) requirements for dental regulatory/licensing authorities located in the USA/Canada and their preferences toward different learning and assessment strategies. METHODS: Data were first retrieved through an environmental scan of CPD requirements posted on the websites for the 62 regulatory/licensing authorities located in the USA/Canada. Subsequently, an electronic questionnaire was distributed to the appropriate contact at each regulatory authority to capture additional data related to knowledge and preferences. RESULTS: The environmental scan revealed that Canadian CPD programs had a significantly higher (p < 0.05) average of required CPD hours (26.67 ± 5.44) when compared to the USA (18.20 ± 4.23). For the survey component, 35 completed responses were received (response rate 56%). A total of 54% of respondents selected from a Likert scale that they "rarely" incorporate formative assessments, and 68% only "sometimes" or "often" incorporate summative assessments into their CPD programs. Additionally, 63% of respondents "never" incorporated predisposing activities, and 57% "never" incorporated reinforcing activities. It was perceived that renewal fees were insufficient to finance ongoing CPD costs (60%) and external industry sponsorships were required to sustain programs (43%). Respondents indicated that there is an insufficient number of evidence-based courses available in a variety of dental disciplines. CONCLUSIONS: Formative and summative assessments and predisposing and reinforcing learning activities were not viewed as essential tools in CPD programs. Costs and human resources could be possible obstacles in incorporating learning activities and assessments. Future studies can build from the initial results of this study to improve the quality of learning in CPD 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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".