ArticlePerspectives on medical education2023
Evaluation of Continuing Professional Development for Physicians - Time for Change: A Scoping Review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training without Harm: Rethinking Ethics, Simulation and the Evolving Future of Medical Education in West Africa.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- A scoping review of the use of behavioral theories in health professionals' continuing professional development research.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluating the effectiveness of continuing professional development training program: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Impact of continuing professional development (CPD) on patient outcomes: a systematic scoping review.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Does Education Design Matter? Evaluating an Evidence-Based Continuing Education Intervention on Genomic Testing for Primary Care; a Pre-Test Post-Test Study.Journal of CME · 2025Article
- The Use of Micro-Credentials in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- Qualitative evaluation of a multidisciplinary master of cancer sciences: impacts on graduates and influencing curricular factors.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Training as imagined? A critical realist analysis of Scotland's internal medicine simulation programme.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- "The genie is out of the bottle": a qualitative study on the impact of COVID-19 on continuing professional development.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.