Physicians' Values as Motivators for Continuing Professional Development: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: According to Self-Determination Theory, when health professionals see their continuing professional development (CPD) efforts as aligned with their intrinsic values (eg, helping others), they may develop a more desirable motivational orientation toward CPD. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the effect of physicians' values on their CPD motivation. METHODS: Practicing physicians in a single Canadian providence were administered an online survey that assessed their motivation for engaging in CPD, the importance they ascribe to three intrinsic and three extrinsic values, and the extent to which engaging in CPD activities is aligned with intrinsic and extrinsic values. RESULTS: A total of 122 physicians completed the survey. Seeing CPD activities as contributing to helping others was positively associated with intrinsic regulation, identified regulation, and introjected regulation. Seeing CPD activities as contributing to personal growth was positively associated with identified regulation. DISCUSSION: As predicted by the Self-Determination Theory, physicians who perceived CPD as aligned with intrinsic values tended to report a more desirable motivational orientation toward CPD. CPD providers can support health professionals' motivation by highlighting connections between CPD activities and intrinsic values in promotional materials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".