The Evaluation of Continuing Medical Education: A Literature Review

Abstract

The literature of continuing medical education (CME) program evaluation was reviewed and analyzed. The "State-of-the-art" of CME evaluation is depicted in a series of tables which indicate evaluation methods and results. Evaluation designs providing strong assurances of valid results were not often found. The weakness of most published evaluations limit possible conclusions about the effectiveness of CME.

Bridging the gap between the science and service of HIV prevention: transferring effective research-based HIV prevention interventions to community AIDS service providers

“…While brief continuing professional education programs can increase knowledge about new practice techniques, they often fail to change the actual practice behavior of the health care provider. [18][19][20][21] This suggests that providing information alone is likely to be a relatively ineffective dissemination strategy.…”

The Development of the Obligatory Education and Certification Programme of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: A practical response to the increasing challenges of a modern society

“…Although earlier studies evaluating the effect of traditional CME on subsequent practitioner competence have failed to establish a cause and effect relationship, reviews by Bertram & Brooks-Bertram (1977) and Lloyd & Abrahamson (1979) established methodological defects in these papers. More recent studies have demonstrated that some forms of continuing education can produce measurable changes in practitioner behaviour, Steyn (1981) and Raymond (1986).…”

“…Proponents of continuing medical education have supported an underlying assumption that a Commitment to lifetime learning should ensure that practitioners would provide better medical care as a result of increasing knowledge-and that this should lead to improved health care outcomes (Bertram & Brooks-Bertram, 1977).…”

A fresh look at some bad ideas in continuing medical education

“…The practical result of this error appears as an almost compulsive need to evaluate (18,19,20), ignoring at times how much effort and cost can be expended to indulge the fetish of evaluation. Those who make this mistake in reasoning fail to distinguish between the outcome in a learner and an assessment of that outcome.…”