Factors affecting the intention of providers to deliver more effective continuing medical education to general practitioners: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of continuing medical education (CME) for GPs, there has been little research into how providers decide what types of CME to deliver to GPs. This study aimed to identify factors affecting the intention of providers to provide more effective types of CME; and to design a survey instrument which can be used to test the applicability of Triandis' model of social behaviour to the provision of CME to general practitioners. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study on a convenience sample of 11 Australian providers of CME for interviews and a random sample of 25 providers for the pilot test. Open-ended interviews structured on Triandis' theory were performed with key informants who provide CME to GPs. These were used to develop a pilot survey instrument to measure the factors affecting intention, resulting in a revised instrument for use in further research. RESULTS: There was a broad range of factors affecting providers' intention to deliver more effective forms of CME identified, and these were classifiable in a manner which was consistent with Triandis' model. Key factors affecting providers' intention were the attitude toward CME within organisations and the time and extra work involved. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a range of potential factors influencing the intention of providers to provide more effective forms of CME, in all categories of Triandis model. Those interested in increasing the choice of more effective CME activities available to GPs may need to broaden the methods used in working with providers to influence them to use more effective CME techniques. The interview material and questionnaire analysis of the pilot survey support the use of Triandis model. Further research is needed to validate Triandis'model for the intention to deliver more effective forms of CME. Such research will inform future strategies aimed at increasing the amount and choice of effective CME activities available for GPs

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program