NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Planning a Continuing Health Professional Education Institute. Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2010.
Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions.
Show detailsEvidence on the effectiveness of continuing education (CE) and CE methods was identified through a literature review. Although nonexhaustive, the review included a comprehensive search of the Research and Development Resource Base (RDRB), a bibliographic database of more than 18,000 articles from fields including CE, knowledge translation, interprofessional literature, and faculty development. Articles in the RDRB are culled from Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Sociological Abstracts, PsychoInfo, Library Information and Science Abstracts (LISA), and business databases, as well as automatic retrieval of articles from journals dedicated to medical education (e.g., Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, Medical Education, Studies in Continuing Education).
The RDRB was searched using keywords,1 and the results of the searches were culled by two independent reviewers using an iterative approach. Studies collected were from 1989 to April 2009. Abstracts of search results were reviewed to eliminate articles that clearly did not pertain to CE methods, cost-effectiveness, or educational theory and to categorize the studies as informative, equivocal, or not informative of CE effectiveness. A wide range of designs were classified as informative, including randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, observational studies, and studies with pre- and post-intervention assessment methodologies. Quantitative and qualitative approaches were included, and inclusion was not limited to studies with positive results. The most common reasons articles were classified as not informative were absence of a trial design, small sample size, and high likelihood of confounding factors in the design that could affect outcomes. The two reviewers independently classified abstracts and full texts of the articles and then compared their classification results. Interreviewer reliability was greater than 80 percent, and discrepancies were resolved by a consensus process. A third reviewer verified the results classified as informative or equivocal in a final round of detailed assessment of the study design, populations, intervention, type of outcome, and conclusions for each article. Systematic reviews and metaanalyses are included in Table A-1; studies and articles are included in Table A-2.
TABLE A-1
Summary of Systematic Reviews on Effectiveness of CE Methods.
TABLE A-2
Literature Review on the Effectiveness of CE Methods.
Table A-1 begins on the next page.
Footnotes
- 1
Keywords used to search the RDRB included “patient participation,” “patient initiated,” “patient mediated,” “physician prompt,” “audit,” “feedback,” “checklist,” “checklists,” “protocol,” “protocols,” “reminder,” “reminders,” “academic detailing,” “simulation,” “simulations,” “lifelong learning,” “experiential,” “self-directed,” “reflection,” “problem based,” “model,” and “modeling.” These keywords were used alone or in combination.
- Literature Review Tables - Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Profes...Literature Review Tables - Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...