From field of dreams to back to the future? Exploring barriers to participating in continuing professional development (CPD) programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2009, Yvonne Steinert et al., at McGill University, published a study exploring barriers to faculty development (FD) participation among urban faculty. Over a decade later, we set out to replicate and expand on that study to learn what has changed in continued professional development (CPD) and what the current barriers are to participation in CPD for specialists and family physicians in rural and urban locations. METHODS: Informed by a collaborative inquiry research framework, we invited faculty across rural and urban Saskatchewan to focus groups and interview sessions. The results were analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Thirty-four faculty members from both rural and urban areas participated in this study. Of these, 50% were female, 74% practiced in urban areas, and 56% had over 20 years of experience. Frequently cited reasons for nonparticipation included time constraints, organizational and logistical challenges, poor resonance with material and presenters, and lack of recognition for teaching provided. Racism contributed to feelings of disconnectedness among physician faculty members. CONCLUSION: Even after more than a decade, our research uncovered consistent reasons for nonparticipation in locally organized CPD events. New findings highlighted feelings of disconnectedness, notably stemming from racism and workplace discrimination. However, with recent societal developments brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, can we ride these major waves of change to a new future of engagement? The pandemic led to a shift to virtual and hybrid professional development programs, presenting both benefits and challenges. Additionally, the peri-COVID anti-racism movement may positively address previously unidentified reasons for nonattendance. Harnessing these major changes could lead to a new future of engagement for continued professional development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".