| Literature DB >> 27549190 |
Arash Hadadgar1,2, Tahereh Changiz3, Italo Masiello4, Zahra Dehghani5, Nahidossadat Mirshahzadeh6, Nabil Zary7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GP) update their knowledge and skills by participating in continuing medical education (CME) programs either in a traditional or an e-Learning format. GPs' beliefs about electronic format of CME have been studied but without an explicit theoretical framework which makes the findings difficult to interpret. In other health disciplines, researchers used theory of planned behavior (TPB) to predict user's behavior.Entities:
Keywords: Continuing medical education; General practitioner; Theory of planned behavior; e-learning
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27549190 PMCID: PMC4994161 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-016-0738-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Fig. 1The constructs of the theory of planned behavior
Fig. 2Demographic and background data of the participants
Pattern matrix for exploratory factor analysis of the questionnaire
| Item | Factor 1 (PBC) | Factor 2 (SN) | Factor (Intention) | Factor 3 (Attitude) | Extraction communality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q09f: eCME final exam |
| -.036 | -.209 | .170 | .652 |
| Q18: eCME audiovisual |
| -.006 | .018 | -.009 | .498 |
| Q09c: eCME scientific quality |
| .013 | .041 | .125 | .535 |
| Q09b: eCME cost |
| -.061 | .180 | -.172 | .501 |
| Q03: Improving practice |
| .160 | .306 | .168 | .560 |
| Q09e: eCME Q&A |
| -.203 | -.058 | -.144 | .355 |
| Q19: eCME & Internet speed |
| -.100 | -.019 | .145 | .330 |
| Q08: Independent learning |
| -.089 | .283 | .160 | .462 |
| Q10: Encouragement by boss | .069 |
| -.067 | .058 | .757 |
| Q11: Encouragement by CME office | -.082 |
| .058 | .031 | .660 |
| Q12: Encouragement by colleagues | .137 |
| .080 | -.059 | .717 |
| Q15: Concentrate with distractors | -.103 | -.116 |
| .098 | .661 |
| Q06: eCME credit possibility | -.099 | -.103 |
| .137 | .578 |
| Q20: CME preference | .250 | -.011 |
| -.130 | .650 |
| Q02: Intention (next 6 month) | .366 | .029 |
| -.034 | .376 |
| Q04: Traffic time | .066 | .125 | -.160 |
| .543 |
| Q05: Job leave | -.056 | -.107 | .133 |
| .454 |
| Q09a: eCME time saving | .227 | -.043 | .005 |
| .478 |
| Q09d: More eCME credits | -.054 | -.057 | .108 |
| .315 |
| Q07: Recommending | .388 | -.101 | .339 |
| .740 |
| Cronbach’s alpha | .81 | .8 | .56 | .78 | |
| Eigen value | 6.4 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.2 |
Extraction Method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 12 iterations
Abbreviations: PBC perceived behavioral control, SN subjective norms
Bold numbers emphasize highest loadings in a column
Goodness-of-fit indicators for model
| Indices | Absolute fit indices | Incremental fit indices | Parsimony fit indices | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMIN/DF | CMIN | RMSEA | CFI | PNFI | |
| Current model | 1.48 |
| 0.06 |
| 0.68 |
| Recommended value | 1-2 |
| <0.10 |
| >0.50 |
Abbreviations: CMIN minimum discrepancy, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, CFI comparative fit index, PNFI parsimony-adjusted normative fit index
Fig. 3Predictability of main constructs of TPB to intention in our model. Numbers in the box are standardized regression weights and the Covariance among latent variables was presented near bidirectional arrows. All arrows had p < 0.01. The number in the arrowed box represents the intention’s variance which explains by 3 other latent variables. PBC indicates perceived behavioral control