Cited by 515Innovations in Medical EducationHealth Sciences Research and EducationHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation

The impact of CME on physician performance and patient health outcomes: an updated synthesis of systematic reviews

Cervero, Ronald M., Gaines, Julie K.·2015·Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Since 1977, many systematic reviews have asked 2 fundamental questions: (1) Does CME improve physician performance and patient health outcomes? and (2) What are the mechanisms of action that lead to positive changes in these outcomes? The article's purpose is to synthesize the systematic review literature about CME effectiveness published since 2003. METHODS: We identified 8 systematic reviews of CME effectiveness published since 2003 in which primary research studies in CME were reviewed and physicians' performance and/or patient health outcomes were included as outcome measures. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews addressed the question of "Is CME Effective?" using primary studies employing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or experimental design methods and concluded: (1) CME does improve physician performance and patient health outcomes, and (2) CME has a more reliably positive impact on physician performance than on patient health outcomes. The 8 systematic reviews support previous research showing CME activities that are more interactive, use more methods, involve multiple exposures, are longer, and are focused on outcomes that are considered important by physicians lead to more positive outcomes. DISCUSSION: Future research on CME effectiveness must take account of the wider social, political, and organizational factors that play a role in physician performance and patient health outcomes. We now have 39 systematic reviews that present an evidence-based approach to designing CME that is more likely to improve physician performance and patient health outcomes. These insights from the scientific study of CME effectiveness should be incorporated in ongoing efforts to reform systems of CME and health care delivery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/chp.21290

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing evidence about the design and outcomes of CCPs is mixed.

    “Although mandatory continuing professional development is an approach that is used widely by professional regulators globally, existing evidence about the design and outcomes of CCPs is mixed [18,247–251].”

    From Nursing regulation in Canada: Insights from a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [249]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cervero, R. M., & Gaines, J. K.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Cervero, Ronald M.
Venue
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
Published
2015
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
131-138
ISSN
0894-1912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1811132532
Cited by
515
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 7
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Keywords
continuing medical education, physician performance, patient outcomes, mechanism of action, interactive learning
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Continuing, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Quality of Health Care, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review