MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982163725

Healthcare professionals’ preferences and needs for continuing professional development activities: A Q-methodology study

2024· dissertation· en· W6982163725 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicQ Methodology Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsViewpointsHealth careIdentification (biology)Continuing professional developmentHealth professionalsProfessional developmentHealthcare deliveryFactor (programming language)Continuing education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Continuing professional development (CPD) provides timely clinical information in the current age of rapid knowledge creation. The exigent COVID-19 pandemic created a scenario that required healthcare educators to adopt alternate CPD delivery models to ensure training continuity. These experiences can shape healthcare professionals’ (HCPs’) preferences and needs, impacting their choice of CPD activities. Methods A cross-sectional, Q-methodology study investigating the preferences and needs of 47 individuals from a range of healthcare professions (physicians, nurses, allied health professionals etc.) was conducted. Three phases of Q-methodology were administered: Q-sample generation, Q-sort exercise and by-person factor analysis. Demographic characteristics like age, geographical location, healthcare discipline, and years of practice were also recorded. Results A Q-sample containing 40 statements related to HCPs’ CPD preferences and needs was derived from the comprehensive literature review and analysis of program evaluation data. The study participants’ demographic characteristics were diverse but evenly distributed (age, occupation), with a large majority practising in Ontario, Canada. Following the Q-sort exercise, an analysis of the respective factor loadings, distinguishing statements and available narrative survey data led to the identification of four factors. These factors represent different types of CPD participants and their training needs. Sixteen participants loaded onto Factor 1 (Value and productivity-focused clinicians), ten participants loaded onto Factor 2 (Application and competency-based learners), ten participants loaded onto Factor 3 (Respite seekers), and three participants loaded onto Factor 4 (Growth-oriented professionals). A single consensus statement that highlighted neutral viewpoints towards the need for CPD activities to have “appropriate difficulty and volume of content” was also identified. Conclusion This study uniquely leveraged on Q-methodology’s ability to study subjectivity using a limited sample, applying it to a diverse interprofessional population. Based on this study’s findings about HCPs’ CPD priorities, CPD providers should adapt their current CPD offerings to better meet contemporary needs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it