ArticleBJGP open2024
Barriers for continuous medical education: a cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Primary Care Physicians' Readiness for AI-Based Adaptive Learning: Perceptions, Barriers, and Learning Needs in Northern Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Willingness of CDC Staff to Participate in Continuing Education in China: A Bayesian Network Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Danish primary care: a focus on general practice in the Danish healthcare system.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Continuing medical education: understanding general practitioners who rarely attend, a cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Mapping motivational factors for continuous medical education: insights from general practitioners with varying levels of participating in CME.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Discrete choice experiment on the preferences for continuing medical education training programs among primary health care physicians in China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGPs' participation in continuous medical education (CME) is essential for patient care, GPs' wellbeing, and healthcare expenditure. However, one-quarter of Danish GPs did not use their reimbursement for CME in 2022. Knowledge of barriers for participating in CME is limited.
aimTo analyse the barriers GPs face to participation in CME, and patterns in perceived barriers. DESIGN &
settingA cross-sectional questionnaire study design was used. The study population comprised all 3257 GPs in Denmark who, in May 2023, were registered as entitled to reimbursement for CME.
methodThe response rate was
resultsThe most frequent barriers were as follows: too busy (67%); fully booked courses (45%); and no substitute or locum doctor (39%). Based on the LCA, we found three distinctive patterns, clustering around the following: GPs from clinics with no tradition for CME (class 1, 17%); GPs who used time on professional work outside clinic (teaching, organisational work) (class 2, 43%); and GPs who were personally or professionally affected (class 3, 40%). Singled-handed and male GPs were slightly overrepresented among seldom users.
conclusionWe have identified barriers for CME. We found three different profiles of GPs who perceived different patterns of barriers. Identified patterns in barriers should be considered in future CME initiatives.
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.