PHARMACISTS' MOTIVATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine pharmacist—reported motives for participation in continuing professional education. Motivational factors were identified, and the effects on the influence of each factor were assessed for the following: 1) legislation requiring participation, 2) demographic variables, and 3) extent of participation. Results of this study provided: 1) a description of pharmacists' professional learning motivation, 2) an assessment of the effect of mandatory continuing pharmacy education on participation motivation, 3) a framework for planning and evaluating continuing pharmacy education programs for specific groups of pharmacists, and 4) a criteria for evaluating continuing pharmacy education programs. A motivational inventory and a demographic questionnaire were mailed to a stratified random sample of 200 pharmacists registered in each of the provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan. The usable return rate was 76.4% of practicing pharmacists. Principal components analysis of the motivational inventory produced the following seven meaningful factors, in decreasing order of influence: Cognitive/Competence, External Professional Expectations, Community Service, Influence of Peers, Professional Advancement, Interpersonal Relationships, and Escape from Routine. Seven independent factor scores for each respondent were used in testing the study hypotheses. Pharmacists' motivational differences were detected by one way analyses of variance and evaluated by group averages or the Scheffe test. No motivational differences were detected for pharmacists based on years of professional experience, or on whether they were employees or managers. Significant motivational differences were found for the variables of province, age, practice type, employment status, work isolation time, extent of participation in continuing professional education and participation in self—directed continuing professional learning. Although significant differences in the influence ratings of the Cognitive/Competence and External Professional Expectations motives were detected between the provincial sub-samples, motivational patterns were not profoundly different. The Cognitive/Competence motive was reported as the most influential motive in both provinces. Since the External Professional Expectations motive was rated third in influence by Ontario pharmacists, it was concluded that pharmacists were influenced by this motive regardless of legislation requiring participation. The influential motives pharmacists reported were considered more relevant to effective planning and implementation of continuing professional education programs than legislated requirements for participation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".