Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11453885›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2001

Continuing Medical Education in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics: report of a questionnaire survey.

J C Mucklow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

J C MucklowDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust, North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 6QG.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo seek the views of medically qualified members of the Clinical Section of the British Pharmacological Society (BPS) on their perceived needs for Continuing Medical Education (CME); on how and by whom these needs should be addressed; and on how the outcome of any educational intervention might best be assessed.

methodsA structured questionnaire.

resultsOf 233 recipients, 140 (60%) responded, but only 123 of these fulfilled the criteria for analysis. A large majority of respondents were clinicians, most of whom devoted at least 25% of their working week to their NHS commitment. There was widespread reliance on textbooks and journals as sources of CME, supplemented by discussions with specialist peers at national and international meetings. Many felt that fulfilling even this agenda was stretching their commitment to the limit, and their greatest need was for protected time in which to learn. There was a desire among 49% of all respondents for the BPS Clinical Section to take some responsibilty for addressing the future needs of its members, and 75% took the view that academic departments should contribute to the development and updating of materials. There was no clear agreement about what these should comprise, but around half of all respondents favoured web-based, journal-based or computer-assisted educational material offering self-assessment opportunities; and CME symposia or workshops at BPS meetings. Almost half (46%) felt that assessment of CME should be integrated with a well-organized appraisal system and the use of portfolios. Six out of 10 respondents were already, or were about to be, regularly appraised at their place of work.

conclusionsThe questionnaire survey revealed a broad canvas of views and little evidence of consensus except for a general plea for more time in which to learn. The aim of the Clinical Section should be to facilitate and help its members to organize their learning, in a way that is consistent with national trends in Continuing Professional Development. The Clinical Section should co-ordinate the setting up of an electronic library of appropriate published material, compiled by academic and industrial sources, that would guide members seeking up-to-date knowledge of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP) should commission review articles on recent developments where no suitable published material exists. Academic departments should also be invited to identify or develop self-assessment material that members could use to reinforce their learning, and demonstrate their knowledge to relevant professional bodies. The Clinical Section should organize Symposia and Workshops at which contentious issues in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics can be discussed and resolved.

Indexed as

TherapeuticsEducation, Medical, ContinuingEducation, Pharmacy, ContinuingHumansPharmacologySocieties, PharmaceuticalSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID11453885
PMCPMC2014501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.