The influence of double-credit evidence-based continuing medical education on presenters and learners. WMJ 2008 Jul;107(4):181-6
Date
08/16/2008Pubmed ID
18702434Scopus ID
2-s2.0-46849120384 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site) 3 CitationsAbstract
BACKGROUND: Medical specialties are adopting methods to improve continuing medical education (CME). A "double credit" option, sponsored by the American Academy of Family Physicians, is now available for presentations submitted and approved as evidence based (EB).
PURPOSE: To compare usual and double-credit CME presentations to determine differences in preparation resources and time, and to compare conference attendees' satisfaction. Those not submitting double-credit applications were asked about perceived barriers.
METHODS: Three pretested, written surveys were administered at a 2.5 day CME conference held annually in Southeastern Wisconsin. Subjects were 38 presenters and 172 attendees, mostly primary care physicians.
RESULTS: Twelve presentations were approved for double-credit; these presenters used a greater percentage of on-line EB resources to prepare their talks (64% versus 23%), and preparation required an additional 4.75 hours on average. Over 90% of attendees perceived greater conference quality due to the EB emphasis. Top barriers to double-credit EB applications were time limits and perceptions that topics were inappropriate.
CONCLUSIONS: Double-credit presenters use a greater percentage of EB resources, while their counterparts used more professional experience to prepare CME presentations. Attendees reported improved quality and value with increased EB CME. Time is a perceived and real factor in preparing double-credit applications.
Author List
Lawrence SL, Morzinski JA, Radjenovich MEMESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
Analysis of VarianceEducation, Medical, Continuing
Educational Measurement
Evidence-Based Medicine
Humans
Specialty Boards
Wisconsin
