Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41074128›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Continuing medical education: understanding general practitioners who rarely attend, a cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs.

Helle Ibsen, Niels Kristian Kjaer, Jens Søndergaard, Igor Švab, Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Helle IbsenResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Finsensgade 35, Esbjerg, 6700, Denmark. heibsen@health.sdu.dk.
Niels Kristian KjaerResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Finsensgade 35, Esbjerg, 6700, Denmark.
Jens SøndergaardResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, Odense M, 5230, Denmark.
Igor ŠvabDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Poljanski nasip 58, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Linda Juel AhrenfeldtResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Finsensgade 35, Esbjerg, 6700, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelEducation, Medical, ContinuingGeneral PractitionersAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesCME formatsContinuing medical educationGeneral practiceMandatory CME

Identifiers

PMID41074128
PMCPMC12513097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.