Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37274809›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2023

Evaluation of Continuing Professional Development for Physicians - Time for Change: A Scoping Review.

Shera Hosseini, Louise Allen, Faran Khalid, Donny Li, Elizabeth Stellrecht, Michelle Howard, Teresa M Chan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Shera HosseiniMcMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Family Medicine, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7144-8510
Louise AllenMonash Center for Professional Development and Monash Online Education, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1087-2235
Faran KhalidMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5410-1729
Donny LiFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2746-6794
Elizabeth StellrechtHead of Health Sciences Library Services, University Libraries, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, US.ORCID 0000-0002-9524-6171
Michelle HowardDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, 100 Main S. W., Hamilton ON, L8P 1H6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8127-5492
Teresa M ChanDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6104-462X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Evaluation of education interventions is essential for continuous improvement as it provides insights into how and why outcomes occur. Specifically, for physicians' continuing professional development (CPD) programs, which aim to upskill physicians in a range of practice-essential domains, evaluations are crucial to assure physicians' continuous development, enhanced patient care and safety. However, evaluations of health professions education (HPE) interventions tend to be outcomes focused, failing to capture how and why outcomes occur. This scoping review aimed to identify evaluation techniques used to evaluate CPD programs for physicians, and to determine how these techniques are being implemented as well as the their quality. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, among others for English publications on evaluation of CPD programs for physicians, in the past decade. We used a data charting template to extract study details regarding the evaluation techniques and produced a checklist to assess the quality of the evaluations. Results: 101 studies were included; of which 91 studies did not use an evaluation framework. Our findings revealed shortcomings in the evaluations of CPD programs including lack of attention to: intervention processes; unintended outcomes and contextual factors; use of theory; evaluation framework use; and rationale for chosen evaluation method. Discussion: Our findings highlighted major gaps in the evaluation techniques employed in physicians' CPD. Attention needs to be paid to evaluating both program processes and outcomes to illuminate how and why impacts are or are not occurring.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, ContinuingPhysiciansHumans

Identifiers

PMID37274809
PMCPMC10237247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.