ArticleJournal of CME2024
An Overview of Continuing Medical Education/Continuing Professional Development Systems in Europe: A Mixed Methods Assessment.
Article in Journal of CME, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions on continuing medical education credit system: a cross-sectional study in Sichuan Province, China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating the effectiveness of the geriatrician-designed "Older Patient Care and Seek Course" for family physicians.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Pharmaceutical marketing and patient trust: How do doctor-targeted campaigns affect patients?PloS one · 2026Article
- Accredited Continuing Medical Education Delivers: Evidence of Value, Trust, and Impact Across the Healthcare System.Journal of CME · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aims of this assessment were to describe the requirements for European physicians to engage in CME/CPD; explore perceptions of their CME/CPD systems; interprofessional continuing education (IPCE) and independent CME/CPD and provide recommendations that may be adopted to improve quality and effectiveness. This assessment used a mixed-methods approach that included 1:1 interviews with in-country subject matter experts (SMEs) and an electronic survey capturing qualitative and quantitative data from practicing in-country physicians. Our analysis reflects countries with CME/CPD systems that are quite mature when compared to other areas of the world. Almost all the European countries have CME/CPD systems that are professionally self-regulated and have implemented policies or laws to limit the influence of pharmaceutical or device companies over content in CME/CPD. Several countries have incorporated a learning sciences framework into their systems, including self-assessment/self-reflection and evaluation of professional practice gaps. Overall quality of CME/CPD systems was described as high, with education focused on knowledge and practice change. Opportunities for improvement are focused on increasing innovation, improving transparency and consistency, and decreasing administrative burdens. About half the countries have and support IPCE, which is likely also a marker of a more mature CME/CPD system. This mixed-method assessment demonstrates that the CME/CPD systems in the 15 European countries reflect elements of mature systems globally. Physician participation is mandated or strongly encouraged and supported. Physicians have access to a wide variety of opportunities to participate in CME/CPD, and they do participate even if not required by regulation. There are mechanisms to ensure the quality of CME/CPD even when pharmaceutical or device companies are permitted to provide education. Suggestions for improvement focus on quality and not basic elements of structure.
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.