“The genie is out of the bottle”: a qualitative study on the impact of COVID-19 on continuing professional development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic catalysed a monumental shift in the field of continuing professional development (CPD). Prior to this, the majority of CPD group-learning activities were offered in-person. However, the pandemic forced the field to quickly pivot towards more novel methods of learning and teaching in view of social distancing regulations. The purpose of this study was to obtain the perspectives of CPD leaders on the impact of the pandemic to elucidate trends, innovations, and potential future directions in the field. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between April-September 2022 with 23 CPD leaders from Canada and the USA. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and de-identified. A thematic analysis approach was used to analyse the data and generate themes. RESULTS: Participants characterised COVID-19 as compelling widespread change in the field of CPD. From the interviews, researchers generated six themes pertaining to the impact of the pandemic on CPD: (1) necessity is the mother of innovation, (2) the paradox of flexibility and accessibility, (3) we're not going to unring the bell, (4) reimagining design and delivery, (5) creating an evaluative culture, and (6) a lifeline in times of turmoil. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study discusses the impact of the pandemic on the field of CPD and leaders' vision for the future. Despite innumerable challenges, the pandemic created opportunities to reform design and delivery. Our findings indicate a necessity to maintain an innovative culture to best support learners, to improve the healthcare system, and to prepare for future emergencies.
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 | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".