Knowledge, Power, and Technology: A Narrative Review of Knowledge-Sharing in Project ECHO
This narrative review joins an ongoing scholarly conversation about Project ECHO, a virtual educational innovation, with an aim to understand it as a technology-enabled interface that facilitates knowledge-sharing. Critical attention is paid to how dynamics of power are accounted for in the deployment of Project ECHO, and sociomaterial attention is paid to how communication technology is described. The review is relevant to those who wish to establish, understand, or further develop virtual multiprovider knowledge-sharing interfaces. Data collection followed processes set out by a narrative review methodology, a review methodology that provides a comprehensive and balanced critical analysis of the published literature. Analysis was informed by thematic analysis. Forty-five articles and one book chapter published between 2015 and 2024 were selected for inclusion. This review was contained to studies of Project ECHO in Canada. Our data set captures an implied awareness of dynamics of power and a desire to counter such dynamics. This is visible in the desire to mitigate a hierarchical differentiation between participants by using teaching and learning theories, a pedagogical design and processes of interaction that favour participation, and by using technology that allows participants to join from across vast geography. Emerging scholarly attention to how knowledge is shared and developed in Project ECHO will help develop an understanding of how technology-enabled educational innovations facilitate knowledge sharing in spaces that are imbued with complex power dynamics. Future explicit inclusion of a critical gaze and sociomaterial lens will deepen understandings of technology-enabled educational innovations.
Access the article here.
12 Aug 2026
Improved Activity Evaluations: An Iterative Process Using the Rasch Model
Introduction: Traditional evaluation models, often linear and outcome-focused, are increasingly inadequate for the complexities of modern medical education, which demands more comprehensive and nuanced assessment approaches. Methods: A standardized continuing professional development activity evaluation instrument was developed and implemented. An iterative process was performed, using a repeat Rasch analysis, to improve reliability of the evaluation instrument. Category Probability Curves and Test Information Function were generated by the Rasch analysis to refine the construction of the assessment. All educational activities completed between 2022 and 2024 were eligible for inclusion. The study incorporated a diverse range of educational activities and included multiple health care professions. Results: The pilot analysis included 250 educational activities with 26,554 individual learners completing evaluations for analysis. Initial Rasch findings demonstrated a need to remove redundancies and change from a five to four-point rating scale. The final instrument validation included 21 activities and 529 learners. Improvement was seen in reliability after modifications, with an increase in Cronbach alpha from 0.72 to 0.80. Discussion: Use of psychometrics to improve assessments can yield a more reliable and less redundant evaluation instrument. This research demonstrates a psychometrically informed, flexible evaluation tool that can inform future educational efforts and serve as a data driven metric to enhance the quality of continuing professional development programs.
Access the article here.
9 Jul 2026
Publishing Qualitative Research in the Journal for Continuing Education in the Health Professions: A Guide for Authors
A qualitative study exploring how nurses adapt to electronic health records is submitted to a journal. The reviewers agree the topic is timely and the interviews are rich, but the article is returned with a request for major revisions. Why? The research questions are vague, the sampling strategy is unclear, and the analytic process is summarized in a single sentence. The rejection note concludes: "Important work, but insufficiently rigorous." Qualitative research offers the field of continuing education in the health professions an opportunity to gain a rich understanding of the culture, context, and perspectives of study participants. This methodology allows for an in-depth investigation of study participants, highlighting "their points of view and experiences … illustrated with their own words … to deepen our understanding of individual variation." However, qualitative research articles are challenged when aspects of the methodology and analysis are not robust, resulting in resubmissions for authors. Common issues in writing qualitative research include the lack of an explicit argument, insufficient interpretation of findings, lack of theoretical foundations, and a clear explication of the data collection and analysis. This editorial outlines common weaknesses in qualitative articles submitted to JCEHP that elicit reviewer criticism and provide strategies for addressing them. This editorial is organized around the major sections of a research article—introduction, methodology, results, discussion, limitations, and conclusion to provide explicit guidance for authors intending to submit to JCEHP. When submitting a qualitative article for consideration in JCEHP, authors should align the components of the article with EQUATOR guidelines and address the following issues outlined in this editorial guide.
Access the article here.
Reach and audience
Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.
Apple Podcasts (US)
5.0 / 5
6 ratings
Spotify
5.0 / 5
2 ratings
Podcast Authority Score: 18 / 100
A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.
Quality
12
Social presence
0
YouTube
0
Engagement
60
Host of JCEHP Emerging Best Practices in CPD?
Claim your podcast to manage its listing and keep your show details accurate.
Pod Engine is an independent podcast discovery and analytics service and is not affiliated with or endorsed by this podcast. Artwork and show content belong to their owners. Full legal notice.
Explore this show Podcast research with Pod Engine
