Assessing Physician Motivation to Engage in Continuing Professional Development on Artificial Intelligence.

IF 1.6 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Adam G Gavarkovs, Jacqueline Kueper, Robert Arntfield, Frank Myslik, Keith Thompson, William McCauley
{"title":"Assessing Physician Motivation to Engage in Continuing Professional Development on Artificial Intelligence.","authors":"Adam G Gavarkovs, Jacqueline Kueper, Robert Arntfield, Frank Myslik, Keith Thompson, William McCauley","doi":"10.1097/CEH.0000000000000594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>To realize the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care, physicians must learn how to use AI-based tools effectively, safely, and equitably. Continuing professional development (CPD) activities are one way to learn how to do this. The purpose of this article is to describe a theory-based approach for assessing health professionals' motivation to participate in CPD on AI-based tools. An online survey, based on an AI competency framework developed from existing literature and expert consultations, was administered to practicing physicians in Ontario, Canada. Across eight subcompetencies for using AI-based tools (eg, appraise AI-based tools for their regulatory and legal status), the survey measured physicians' perception they could successfully enact the competency, the importance of the competency in meeting their practice needs, and the desirability of participating in CPD activities on the competency. Motivation scores were calculated by multiplying the three scores together. Ninety-five physicians completed the survey. The highest motivation scores were for the subcompetency of identifying AI-based tools based on clinical needs, while the lowest motivation scores were for appraising tools' regulatory and legal status. All AI subcompetencies were generally rated as important, and CPD activities were generally perceived as desirable. This survey demonstrates the utility of a theory-based approach for assessing physicians' motivation to learn. Although the survey results are context specific, the approach may be useful for other CPD providers to support decision making about future AI-related CPD activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":50218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000594","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: To realize the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care, physicians must learn how to use AI-based tools effectively, safely, and equitably. Continuing professional development (CPD) activities are one way to learn how to do this. The purpose of this article is to describe a theory-based approach for assessing health professionals' motivation to participate in CPD on AI-based tools. An online survey, based on an AI competency framework developed from existing literature and expert consultations, was administered to practicing physicians in Ontario, Canada. Across eight subcompetencies for using AI-based tools (eg, appraise AI-based tools for their regulatory and legal status), the survey measured physicians' perception they could successfully enact the competency, the importance of the competency in meeting their practice needs, and the desirability of participating in CPD activities on the competency. Motivation scores were calculated by multiplying the three scores together. Ninety-five physicians completed the survey. The highest motivation scores were for the subcompetency of identifying AI-based tools based on clinical needs, while the lowest motivation scores were for appraising tools' regulatory and legal status. All AI subcompetencies were generally rated as important, and CPD activities were generally perceived as desirable. This survey demonstrates the utility of a theory-based approach for assessing physicians' motivation to learn. Although the survey results are context specific, the approach may be useful for other CPD providers to support decision making about future AI-related CPD activities.

评估医生从事人工智能持续专业发展的动机。
摘要:为了实现人工智能(AI)在医疗保健领域的变革潜力,医生必须学习如何有效、安全、公平地使用基于AI的工具。持续专业发展(CPD)活动是学习如何做到这一点的一种方式。本文的目的是描述一种基于理论的方法来评估卫生专业人员在基于人工智能的工具上参与CPD的动机。根据现有文献和专家咨询开发的人工智能能力框架,对加拿大安大略省的执业医生进行了在线调查。通过使用基于人工智能的工具的八个子能力(例如,评估基于人工智能的工具的监管和法律地位),调查测量了医生对他们能够成功制定能力的看法,能力在满足其实践需求方面的重要性,以及参与持续专业发展活动的意愿。动机分数是通过将这三个分数相乘来计算的。95名医生完成了调查。动机得分最高的是基于临床需求识别基于人工智能的工具的子胜任力,而动机得分最低的是评估工具的监管和法律地位。所有人工智能的子能力通常被认为是重要的,CPD活动通常被认为是可取的。这项调查证明了基于理论的方法对评估医生学习动机的效用。虽然调查结果是特定于环境的,但该方法可能对其他持续专业进修提供者在支持未来与人工智能相关的持续专业进修活动的决策时有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Continuing Education is a quarterly journal publishing articles relevant to theory, practice, and policy development for continuing education in the health sciences. The journal presents original research and essays on subjects involving the lifelong learning of professionals, with a focus on continuous quality improvement, competency assessment, and knowledge translation. It provides thoughtful advice to those who develop, conduct, and evaluate continuing education programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信