The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Randomized Trial of Continuing Medical Education
Abstract
To determine whether continuing medical education affects the quality of clinical care, we randomly allocated 16 Ontario family physicians to receive or not receive continuing-education packages covering clinical problems commonly confronted in general practice. Over 4500 episodes of care, provided before and after study physicians received continuing education, were compared with preset clinical criteria and classified according to quality. Although objective tests confirmed that the study physicians learned from the packages, there was little effect on the overall quality of care. When the topics were of relatively great interest to the physicians, the control group (who did not receive the packages) showed as much improvement as did the study group. When the topics were not preferred, however, the documented quality of care provided by study physicians rose (P less than 0.05) and differed from that provided by control physicians (P = 0.01). Finally, there was no spillover effect on clinical problems not directly covered by the program. In view of the trend toward mandatory continuing education and the resources expended, it is time to reconsider whether it works.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485
Davis, D. A., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Van Harrison, R., Thorpe, K. E., & Perrier, L. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.9.1094 · Cited by 2,375
Forsetlund, L., Bjørndal, A., Rashidian, A., Jamtvedt, G., O'Brien, M. A., Wolf, F. M., Davis, D., Odgaard-Jensen, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003030.pub2 · Cited by 1,849
Self-Assessment in the Health Professions: A Reformulation and Research Agenda
Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015 · Cited by 992
Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001 · Cited by 913
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes
Jamtvedt, G., Young, J. M., Kristoffersen, D. T., O'Brien, M. A., & Oxman, A. D. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub2 · Cited by 912
The unit of analysis error in studies about physicians' patient care behavior
Divine, G. W., Brown, J. T., & Frazier, L. M. (1992) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02599201 · Cited by 749
Weingarten, S. R. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7370.925 · Cited by 735
An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07283-5 · Cited by 734
Continuing Medical Education Effect on Practice Performance
Davis, D., & Galbraith, R. (2009) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.08-2517 · Cited by 172
Anderson, F. A. (1994) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420060103011 · Cited by 156
What are the most effective strategies for improving quality and safety of health care?
Scott, I. (2009) · Internal Medicine Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2008.01798.x · Cited by 153
Wallace, J., Rao, R., & Haslam, R. (2002) · Advances in Psychiatric Treatment · doi:10.1192/apt.8.5.342 · Cited by 126
Gullion, D. S., Tschann, J. M., Adamson, E. T., & Coates, T. J. (1988) · Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · doi:10.1002/chp.4750080402 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Sibley, J. C., Sackett, D. L., Neufeld, V., Gerrard, B., Rudnick, K. V., & Fraser, W.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1982-03-04
- Volume
- 306
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 511-515
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2041544120
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
