Visitors   Views   Downloads

Developing a valid and reliable assessment on knowledge translation in the continuing professional development (CPD) of health professionals

View preprint
182 days ago
Developing a valid and reliable assessment on knowledge translation in the continuing professional development (CPD) of health professionals https://t.co/ZaLgZNC1vW
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Inventory of Reflective Vignettes - Knowledge Translation (IRV-KT) Tool

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.26861v1/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Author Contributions

Irvin L Ong conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Michael Joseph S Diño conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Maria Minerva P Calimag conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Fe A Hidalgo conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

The Institutional Ethics Review Committee of Our Lady of Fatima University, a level 2 Accredited Research Ethics Committee of the Philippine Health Research Ethics Board granted ethical approval the protocol and to carry out the study.

Funding

The authors received no funding for this work


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies