ArticleThe Permanente journal2026
Breaking Silos: Improving Continuing Medical Education Planning Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration.
Article in The Permanente journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA project team at Southern California Permanente Medical Group piloted a redesigned, interdisciplinary approach to the planning of continuing medical education (CME) that brought key stakeholders together at the initial consultation.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess faculty and planner perceptions of the planning process before and after implementation. Eligible participants were individuals who had participated in CME activities under both models between January 2022 and March 2025 (N = 18). The survey included Likert-scale, multiple-choice, and open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were examined using thematic analysis.
resultsParticipants reported high levels of support under both models, with more consistently positive perceptions of communication, coordination, and access to resources in the collaborative approach. Findings related to preparedness, efficiency, and perceived educational value were mixed.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that early interdisciplinary collaboration may support improved coordination in CME planning. Further research with larger samples and more robust measures is needed to better evaluate the impact of this approach on efficiency and educational outcomes.
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.