Claims

Barriers and facilitators to SDL in CPD occur at five levels: individual, program, technological, environmental, and workplace/organizational

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Conventional content analysis of 17 Canadian articles generated five categories of SDL barriers and facilitators, with individual barriers coded in most articles (82.3%) and program facilitators in most (70.6%). → Dahn J 2018

Evidence

Dahn J 2018

Dahn J, Presseau J, ElChamaa R, Naumann DN, Mascaro C, Luconi F, Smith KM, Kitto S. (2018). Barriers and Facilitators to Self-Directed Learning in Continuing Professional Development for Physicians in Canada: A Scoping Review. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002237

q3 · i? · review · r2

Scoping review of 17 Canadian articles on SDL in CPD for physicians; inductive conventional content analysis generated the five level-based categories. The review reports "Individual barriers (n = 14; 82.3%) and program facilitators (n = 12; 70.6%) were coded in most articles."

"Five categories of barriers and facilitators were generated through a conventional content analysis,40 focusing on the levels at which the barriers/facilitators are perceived to occur: individual, program, technological, environmental, and workplace/organizational."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.