Resource Center

MANUSCRIPT: Effectiveness of Continuing Medical Education (2007 AHRQ Report)

Results: Of the 68,000 citations identified by literature searching, 136 articles and 9 systematic reviews ultimately met our eligibility criteria. The overall quality of the literature was low and consequently firm conclusions were not possible. Despite this, the literature overall supported the concept that CME was effective, at least to some degree, in achieving and maintaining the objectives studied, including knowledge (22 of 28 studies), attitudes (22 of 26), skills (12 of 15), practice behavior (61 of 105), and clinical practice outcomes (14 of 33). Common themes included that live media was more effective than print, multimedia was more effective than single media interventions, and multiple exposures were more effective than a single exposure. The number of articles that addressed internal and/or external characteristics of CME activities was too small and the studies too heterogeneous to determine if any of these are crucial for CME success. Evidence was limited on the reliability and validity of the tools that have been used to assess CME effectiveness. Based on previous reviews, the evidence indicates that simulation methods in medical education are effective in the dissemination of psychomotor and procedural skills.

http://archive.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/cme/cme.pdf

Post Tags -
Brian S McGowan, PhD

Written by

Brian is a research scientist and educational technologist. He helped transform Pfizer’s Medical Education Group and previously served in educational leadership roles at HealthAnswers, Inc.; Acumentis, LLC.; Cephalon; and Wyeth. He taught graduate medical education programs at Arcadia University for 10 years. Dr. McGowan recently authored the book "#socialQI: Simple Solutions for Improving Your Healthcare" and has been invited to speak internationally on the subject of information flow, technology, and learning in healthcare.

One Response to “MANUSCRIPT: Effectiveness of Continuing Medical Education (2007 AHRQ Report)”

[…] Now, if the assumption is valid, then ‘no harm done’ and we might just as well be content with the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing model of lifelong learning in the health professions. But if the assumption is invalid, well then this one issue (do clinicians really know how to learn) might go a long way to explaining why we continue to hear about a ‘broken and fragmented‘ system of lifelong learning and why CME in particular has been referred to as ‘minimally’ or ‘generally’ effective. […]

Leave a Comment