ArticleJournal of CME2026
Understanding Time Availability and Format Preferences for AI Professional Development in Health Professions Education.
Article in Journal of CME, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As AI becomes more integrated into healthcare and health professions education, educators require training that supports AI literacy, responsible use, and practical application. Professional development opportunities must be practical, feasible, and aligned with educators' professional responsibilities and time constraints. This study examined health professions educators' preferences for AI training, including priority topics, preferred formats, time availability, and incentives for participation. We conducted a cross-sectional study using an anonymous REDCap questionnaire between August and November 2025. Clinician educators were recruited through academic and professional networks affiliated with the Association of Schools Advancing Health Professions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise survey responses. Among 175 participants, most were faculty (
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.