ArticleBMC medical education2025
Continuing medical education: understanding general practitioners who rarely attend, a cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Knowledge among primary care physicians on urticaria treatment: Impact of educational interventions.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuing medical education (CME) is vital for patient care, society, and general practitioners' (GPs) wellbeing. Despite its benefits, some GPs attend CME infrequently. While GPs' preferences for CME are well documented, it is unclear if these preferences are shared by infrequent users. Exploring infrequent CME users' preferences and educational needs is essential to engage them effectively. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To explore infrequent users' preferences for CME formats and their attitudes towards mandatory CME compared to their CME attending GP colleagues.
methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted among all 3,257 GPs in Denmark. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were used.
resultsResponders were categorized into four CME user types: frequent (42%), partial (44%), infrequent (14%), and "do not know" (< 1%). All responders highly valued teachers and course leaders with insight into general practice. Overall, interactive learning activities and formats directly applicable to clinical practice were preferred, while online education, self-study, fact-based lectures, and sponsored meetings ranked lower. Infrequent users were more positive than frequent users towards reading on their own and fact-based lectures without participant involvement and short travel time. They were less positive about time-consuming learning such as week-long courses and courses abroad. Among infrequent users, 72% were principally opposed to mandatory CME setups, whereas a much smaller proportion opposed the current extent of mandatory CME in Denmark. This suggests a difference between practical acceptance and principled opposition. Despite infrequent users' reluctance towards participant involvement, they were open to small group learning and in-practice formats.
conclusionTeachers and course leaders with profound insight in general practice and patient-focused content seem to be an unquestionable requirement for successful CME. Infrequent users' reluctance towards participant involvement, but openness to small group learning and in-practice formats should be used strategically. Offering a variety of accessible, smaller-scale courses supports autonomy and diversity. Mandatory CME is not seen exclusively negatively and can be accepted if perceived relevant or as a valuable break or educational guarantee. However, it must be balanced with voluntary options to avoid causing demotivation.
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.