ArticleJournal of CME2026
General Practitioner Engagement with Continuing Professional Development: A Scoping Review Protocol.
Article in Journal of CME, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuing professional development (CPD) is a cornerstone of lifelong learning for general practitioners (GPs), encompassing both formal (e.g. courses, workshops) and informal (e.g. peer learning, self-directed) activities. While CPD is increasingly mandated through credit-based systems, concerns have emerged that such frameworks may encourage compliance-driven behaviour, limiting relevance to clinical practice and undermining professional autonomy. This scoping review will examine how GPs engage with CPD in terms of decision-making, motivation, and perceived value, and factors influencing their choice of CPD activities. This will be addressed through two sub-questions: (1) What personal, professional, contextual, organisational or systemic factors influence CPD choices? (2) What strategies do GPs use to identify, select, and prioritise CPD activities? A comprehensive systematic search will be conducted across MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ERIC, Scopus, Informit, and APA PsycINFO, supplemented by grey literature from stakeholder organisations, conference websites, and structured Google searches. Eligible studies will include empirical research on GPs' CPD engagement in primary care settings within systems that mandate CPD participation. The review will follow JBI methodology and will be reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. By synthesising current evidence, the review seeks to inform the design of practitioner-centred CPD models that support reflective practice, lifelong learning, and improved patient care.
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.