ArticleCanadian medical education journal2026
What counts? Defining scholarship in continuing professional development using a national modified Delphi study.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In many domains within medical education, scholarship can have unique attributes. The accreditation standards for Canadian Continuing Professional Development (CPD) require scholarly output from each Office in Canada. However, it is unclear what scholarly outputs might be considered as CPD scholarship. Methods: Representatives from a national cross-section of collaborators within the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) network and other national organizations assisted in this project. Collaborators participated in a 3-phase, modified Delphi study from October 31st, 2023- June 17th, 2024. The three phases included: 1) Registration and Ideation; 2) Consensus Process; 3) Group Validation. Results: A total of 31 individuals registered as part of the consensus panel, and 29 individuals (93.5% response) completed the 3-stages of the modified Delphi. The endorsement of 18/31 types of scholarship, including novel forms such as Community Engagement, Testing/Pilot Approaches, and Advocacy Scholarship, reflects an important shift in how CPD scholarship is understood. Discussion: In a first for our field, the results of this study comprise a consensus-based definition that defines CPD scholarship at a national scale. The results crucially inform national accreditation processes, strategic planning exercises, and overall, in expanding the types and acceptance of activities as recognized scholarly work for those seeking recognition and promotion within the domain of CPD. We do so with the voice of our community to inspire new and emergent scholarship. Periodic reviews of these concepts should be conducted, as scholarly pursuits evolve over time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.