Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37415150›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Continuing professional development (CPD) system development, implementation, evaluation and sustainability for healthcare professionals in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a rapid scoping review.

Lisa Merry, Sonia Angela Castiglione, Geneviève Rouleau, Dimitri Létourneau, Caroline Larue, Marie-France Deschênes, Dolly Maria Gonsalves, Lubana Ahmed

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Producing Mobility, Withholding Authority: Epistemic Drain and Nursing Sovereignty in Nepal.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Lisa MerryFaculty of Nursing, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada. Lisa.merry@umontreal.ca.
Sonia Angela CastiglioneIngram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Geneviève RouleauInternational Health Unit, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Dimitri LétourneauFaculty of Nursing, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Caroline LarueFaculty of Nursing, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Marie-France DeschênesFaculty of Nursing, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Dolly Maria GonsalvesProNurse Project, Cowater International, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Lubana AhmedProNurse Project, Cowater International, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicymakers and program developers in low-and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs) are increasingly seeking evidence-based information and guidance on how to successfully develop and implement continuing professional development (CPD) systems. We conducted a rapid scoping review to map and synthesize what is known regarding the development, implementation, evaluation and sustainability of CPD systems for healthcare professionals in LLMICs.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science. Reference lists were screened and a cited reference search of included articles was conducted. Supplementary information on the CPD systems identified in the articles was also identified via an online targeted grey literature search. English, French and Spanish literature published from 2011 to 2021 were considered. Data were extracted and combined and summarized according to country/region and healthcare profession via tables and narrative text.

resultsWe included 15 articles and 23 grey literature sources. Africa was the region most represented followed by South and Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The literature most often referred to CPD systems for nurses and midwives; CPD systems for physicians were frequently referred to as well. Findings show that leadership and buy-in from key stakeholders, including government bodies and healthcare professional organizations, and a framework are essential for the development, implementation and sustainability of a CPD system in a LLMIC. The guiding framework should incorporate a regulatory perspective, as well as a conceptual lens (that informs CPD objectives and methods), and should consider contextual factors (support for CPD, healthcare context and population health needs). In terms of important steps to undertake, these include: a needs assessment; drafting of a policy, which details the regulations (laws/norms), the CPD requirements and an approach for monitoring, including an accreditation mechanism; a financing plan; identification and production of appropriate CPD materials and activities; a communication strategy; and an evaluation process.

conclusionLeadership, a framework and a clearly delineated plan that is responsive to the needs and context of the setting, are essential for the development, implementation and sustainability of a CPD system for healthcare professionals in a LLMIC.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesPhysiciansDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansNeeds AssessmentBangladeshContinuing professional development (CPD)CPD system development and implementationLow- and lower-middle income countriesRapid scoping review

Identifiers

PMID37415150
PMCPMC10324177

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.