15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of the CPD-REACTION Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals: Systematic Review

      research-article
      , BSc, MPH 1 , 2 , 3 , , MD 1 , 2 , 3 , , BSc, MSc 2 , , BSc, MSc, PhD 4 , , BSc, MSc 1 , 2 , 3 , , BSc, MSc, PhD 1 , 5 , , MSc, MD, FRCSC 6 , , PhD 6 , , BSc, MSc, PhD 1 , 2 , , BSc, MSc, PhD 1 , 2 , , BSc, MSc, MD, PhD, FCMF 1 , 2 , 5 , 7 ,
      ,
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR Medical Education
      JMIR Publications
      CPD-REACTION, behavior, intention, education medical, continuing, health care professionals, questionnaire, web-based, continuing professional development

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential for physicians to maintain and enhance their knowledge, competence, skills, and performance. Web-based CPD plays an essential role. However, validated theory–informed measures of their impact are lacking. The CPD-REACTION questionnaire is a validated theory–informed tool that evaluates the impact of CPD activities on clinicians’ behavioral intentions.

          Objective

          We aimed to review the use of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire, which measures the impact of CPD activities on health professionals’ intentions to change clinical behavior. We examined CPD activity characteristics, ranges of intention, mean scores, score distributions, and psychometric properties.

          Methods

          We conducted a systematic review informed by the Cochrane review methodology. We searched 8 databases from January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2021. Gray literature was identified using Google Scholar and Research Gate. Eligibility criteria included all health care professionals, any study design, and participants’ completion of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire either before, after, or before and after a CPD activity. Study selection, data extraction, and study quality evaluation were independently performed by 2 reviewers. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, the CPD activity (eg, targeted clinical behavior and format), and CPD-REACTION use. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. Data extracted were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Student t test (2-tailed) for bivariate analysis. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

          Results

          Overall, 65 citations were eligible and referred to 52 primary studies. The number of primary studies reporting the use of CPD-REACTION has increased continuously since 2014 from 1 to 16 publications per year (2021). It is available in English, French, Spanish, and Dutch. Most of the studies were conducted in Canada (30/52, 58%). Furthermore, 40 different clinical behaviors were identified. The most common CPD format was e-learning (34/52, 65%). The original version of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire was used in 31 of 52 studies, and an adapted version in 18 of 52 studies. In addition, 31% (16/52) of the studies measured both the pre- and postintervention scores. In 22 studies, CPD providers were university-based. Most studies targeted interprofessional groups of health professionals (31/52, 60%).

          Conclusions

          The use of CPD-REACTION has increased rapidly and across a wide range of clinical behaviors and formats, including a web-based format. Further research should investigate the most effective way to adapt the CPD-REACTION questionnaire to a variety of clinical behaviors and contexts.

          Trial Registration

          PROSPERO CRD42018116492; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=116492

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

          Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols. © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2014.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews

            Background Qualitative systematic reviews are increasing in popularity in evidence based health care. Difficulties have been reported in conducting literature searches of qualitative research using the PICO search tool. An alternative search tool, entitled SPIDER, was recently developed for more effective searching of qualitative research, but remained untested beyond its development team. Methods In this article we tested the ‘SPIDER’ search tool in a systematic narrative review of qualitative literature investigating the health care experiences of people with Multiple Sclerosis. Identical search terms were combined into the PICO or SPIDER search tool and compared across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus databases. In addition, we added to this method by comparing initial SPIDER and PICO tools to a modified version of PICO with added qualitative search terms (PICOS). Results Results showed a greater number of hits from the PICO searches, in comparison to the SPIDER searches, with greater sensitivity. SPIDER searches showed greatest specificity for every database. The modified PICO demonstrated equal or higher sensitivity than SPIDER searches, and equal or lower specificity than SPIDER searches. The modified PICO demonstrated lower sensitivity and greater specificity than PICO searches. Conclusions The recommendations for practice are therefore to use the PICO tool for a fully comprehensive search but the PICOS tool where time and resources are limited. Based on these limited findings the SPIDER tool would not be recommended due to the risk of not identifying relevant papers, but has potential due to its greater specificity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

              Systematic reviews combining qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods studies are increasingly popular because of their potential for addressing complex interventions and phenomena, specifically for assessing and improving clinical practice. A major challenge encountered with this type of review is the appraisal of the quality of individual studies given the heterogeneity of the study designs. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was developed to help overcome this challenge. The aim of this study was to explore the usefulness of the MMAT by seeking the views and experiences of researchers who have used it.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Med Educ
                JMIR Med Educ
                JME
                JMIR Medical Education
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2369-3762
                Apr-Jun 2022
                2 May 2022
                : 8
                : 2
                : e36948
                Affiliations
                [1 ] VITAM – Centre de Recherche en Santé Durable, Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale Université Laval Quebec, QC Canada
                [2 ] Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation Université Laval Quebec, QC Canada
                [3 ] Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Université Laval Quebec, QC Canada
                [4 ] School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Université de Sherbrooke Sherbrooke, QC Canada
                [5 ] Unité de Soutien SSA Québec Université Laval Quebec, QC Canada
                [6 ] Direction du Développement Professionnel Continu, Fédération des Médecins Spécialistes du Québec Montreal, QC Canada
                [7 ] Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Université Laval Quebec, QC Canada
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: France Légaré France.Legare@ 123456mfa.ulaval.ca
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0947-7708
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4559-0190
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6138-865X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8672-5672
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4978-0613
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6328-5451
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9698-9519
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4413-5962
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8628-3950
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2904-9890
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2296-6696
                Article
                v8i2e36948
                10.2196/36948
                9112082
                35318188
                74a44773-dda4-4a04-b800-f94a2506b8b5
                ©Gloria Ayivi-Vinz, Felly Bakwa Kanyinga, Lysa Bergeron, Simon Décary, Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso, Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun, Sam J Daniel, Martin Tremblay, Karine V Plourde, Sabrina Guay-Bélanger, France Légaré. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 02.05.2022.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Education, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mededu.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 31 January 2022
                : 25 February 2022
                : 11 March 2022
                : 21 March 2022
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                cpd-reaction,behavior,intention,education medical,continuing,health care professionals,questionnaire,web-based,continuing professional development

                Comments

                Comment on this article