An Approach to the Design and Development of an Accredited Continuing Professional Development e-Learning Module on Virtual Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Virtual care appointments expanded rapidly during COVID-19 out of necessity and to enable access and continuity of care for many patients. While previous work has explored health care providers' experiences with telehealth usage on small-scale projects, the broad-level adoption of virtual care during the pandemic has expounded opportunities for a better understanding of how to enhance the integration of telehealth as a regular mode of health care services delivery. Training and education for health care providers on the effective use of virtual care technologies are factors that can help facilitate improved adoption and use. We describe our approach to designing and developing an accredited continuing professional development (CPD) program using e-learning technologies to foster better knowledge and comfort among health care providers with the use of virtual care technologies. First, we discuss our approach to undertaking a systematic needs assessment study using a survey questionnaire of providers, key informant interviews, and a patient focus group. Next, we describe our steps in consulting with key stakeholder groups in the health system and arranging committees to inform the design of the program and address accreditation requirements. The instructional design features and aspects of the e-learning module are then described in depth, and our plan for evaluating the program is shared as well. As a CPD modality, e-learning offers the opportunity to enhance access to timely continuing professional education for health care providers who may be geographically dispersed across rural and remote communities.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".