ArticleBMC medical education2024
Physician preferences for Online and In-person continuing medical education: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions on continuing medical education credit system: a cross-sectional study in Sichuan Province, China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessing Primary Care Physicians' Readiness for AI-Based Adaptive Learning: Perceptions, Barriers, and Learning Needs in Northern Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From a cancer survivorship-focused continuing medical education course to practice change implementation: results of a provider survey.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Awareness of sustainability among gynecologists in Germany: results of a semirepresentative nationwide survey.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Understanding Time Availability and Format Preferences for AI Professional Development in Health Professions Education.Journal of CME · 2026Article
- Number Needed to Teach (N2T2): Bringing Additional Context to the Evaluation of CME Outcomes.Journal of CME · 2026Article
- Preferences for implementing training program among primary care physicians in prescribing and deprescribing for patients with multimorbidity: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- An obesity care curriculum improves residents' self-efficacy and clinical practice habits.Obesity pillars · 2025Article
- Continuing medical education: understanding general practitioners who rarely attend, a cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- China's national continuing medical education program for general practitioners: a cross-sectional survey (2016-2023).BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Analysis of CME Participation and Credit Compliance Among Healthcare Professionals: A Five-Year Study (2019-2023) From a Hospital in Guangdong, China.Advances in medical education and practice · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe worldwide market for continuing medical education (CME) was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which precipitated an increase in web-based CME course attendance. Virtual education methods may be effective for engaging learners and changing behaviors. However, more information is needed about physician preferences for in-person vs. livestreamed CME courses in the postpandemic era. Because of the paucity of data regarding this topic, the current study was designed to evaluate CME participant characteristics, preferences, engagement, and satisfaction with traditional in-person vs. virtual educational methods.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed of attendees of two large internal medicine CME courses held in 2021. Both CME courses were offered via in-person and livestream options, and were taught by Mayo Clinic content experts. Participants, who consisted of practicing physicians seeking CME, completed a 41-question survey after CME course completion. Statistical comparisons were performed by using Fisher exact tests for all survey items, except for those with ordinal response sets, which were compared with Cochran-Armitage trend tests.
resultsA total of 146 participants completed the survey (response rate, 30.2%). Among the 77 respondents who attended in-person courses, the most frequent reasons indicated were the opportunity to travel (66%) and collaboration/networking with others (25%). Among the 68 respondents who attended the livestream courses, the most frequent reasons indicated included COVID-19-related concerns (65%), convenience (46%), and travel costs (34%). The percentage of respondents who indicated that they would choose the same mode of attendance if given the option again was higher for those who attended in person than for those who attended via livestream (91% vs. 65%, P < .001).
conclusionsThese data suggest that in-person course offerings will continue to be a preferred learning method for some physicians. However, most respondents who attended virtually preferred that method. Therefore, hybrid CME models offering both in-person and virtual options may be most beneficial for meeting the needs of all CME learners.
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.