While virtual CPD has been available for several years, its growth has been dramatically accelerated by the pandemic. However, outside the pandemic, best practices around when and how to include virtual options have not been established. The aim of this scoping review is to explore any advantages for virtual CPD, to determine what barriers exist and which strategies can be deployed to overcome them, and whether networking can be successfully incorporated into faculty development events. While there was a large degree of heterogeneity in the studies, in target audiences, type of interventions, and size and location of events, common themes emerged.
One of the most important benefits to offering virtual options for CPD events is extending the reach to audiences that would not otherwise be able to participate. This is especially notable for events that are either long-distance or longitudinal. There are a variety of reasons that attendees may be unable to participate – cost, work demands, time spent traveling, and time away from family. This tends to disproportionately affect those in rural areas, in low-income areas, and for those with young children (often disproportionally impacting women). As the pandemic ends and organizers consider a move back to in-person events, planners should carefully consider how requiring in-person attendance may affect these populations, and whether this can be offset by introducing virtual options. Virtual conferences are less expensive for attendees and may be less expensive for organizers. Additional benefits noted included participants’ ability to form local connections with individuals who understand local conditions in hub-and-satellite models. There is also a significant difference between virtual and in-person CPD events in their impact to the environment, especially for those who are required to travel longer distances to attend. Several studies noted that providing virtual options allows session to be recorded and archived, for later reviewing or distribution to a different audience.
There are several factors to consider prior to creating virtual CPD events or adding virtual options. The use of technology itself was the most consistent challenge noted. The most frequently mentioned strategies to overcome technology barriers were (a) careful and extensive pre-testing of the technology and (b) training the course faculty and facilitators. Each type of virtual event will require different technology management techniques. As an example, a large CPD conference that is completely virtual may benefit from pre-recorded sessions, moderators to manage questions, and parallel “channels” so that one session running over will not disrupt the next event. On the other hand, a “hub-and-satellite” model may benefit from training on-site facilitators; “hub-and-spoke” models will require careful planning to keep virtual attendees engaged. In addition to managing technology, CPD planners should be aware that communicating and teaching virtually requires different techniques than in-person teaching. Training faculty in virtual teaching methods appears beneficial and was evident as an integral component of virtual CPD based on this review.
Networking is an important part of professional development. While networking is traditionally thought of in the context of career advancement, networking also builds informal relationships to improve the ability to perform work-related activities and/or build work-related knowledge (48).
Inability to network is frequently cited as a drawback to virtual CPD. Although effective networking is best measured through social network mapping (49), we did not find any studies that incorporated this technique. Instead, we focused on studies that measured higher-level Kirkpatrick outcomes (knowledge, behavior, results) as evidence of successful networking. With this caveat, we found that networking designed with a goal in mind can be successfully incorporated into virtual CPD events. Virtual CPD events that successfully incorporated goal-oriented networking brought people together based on specific common interests, and most built networking around common projects. Successful networking required high-quality facilitation, particularly in the group-formation phase. Some CPD planners employing a longitudinal approach to CPD found that an initial in-person event assisted with relationships; however, the benefits/drawbacks of adding an in-person requirement should be carefully balanced and attention paid to attendees who might not be able to travel for an in-person event.
The major strength of our study is that this is a comprehensive review of almost 300 studies. Following the methodology for scoping reviews allowed us to identify relevant themes, even though there were large variations in populations, techniques, and outcomes. Despite this, our study does have some limitations. We searched databases related to professional training and therefore may have missed papers in other fields that may have been relevant. In addition, as is common with CPD conferences, higher-level outcomes were not often assessed. In our review, only 21.5% of the studies evaluated knowledge of other higher levels of outcomes, consistent with other studies evaluating traditional CPD events (50). Without higher-level outcomes, it is difficult to determine the true impact of a CPD program, whether virtual or in-person. Finally, virtual professional development is a rapidly growing area, and we anticipate that relevant studies may have been published between our initial search and final publication of our study.