CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Innovations in Medical EducationHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationHealth Sciences Research and Education

Impact Studies in Continuing Education For Health Professionals: A Critique of the Research Syntheses

Umble, Karl E., Cervero, Ronald M.·1996·Evaluation & the Health Professions
DOI 10.1177/016327879601900202
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Documenting impact has been a continual pursuit in continuing education (CE) for health professionals. Hundreds of primary impact studies have been published, along with 16 impact study syntheses that have sought to generalize about the effectiveness of CE and sometimes how and why the effects occur. This article describes and critiques the methodology of the 16 syntheses and summarizes their findings. A first wave of syntheses established a general causal connection between CE and impacts, but explained impact variability only in the dependent variable-knowledge, competence, performance, or outcome. A second wave added a search for causal explanation through analysis of variables that moderate impact. This wave has begun to identify the most appropriate types of programs for promoting performance changes. The article concludes by suggesting questions and methods for future primary studies and meta-analyses, including improved experimental and meta-analytical methods, along with case and naturalistic studies and action research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/016327879601900202

Cites

63 of 63 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 [251]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Umble, K. E., & Cervero, R. M.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
ORCID
Venue
Evaluation & the Health Professions
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1996-06
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
148-174
ISSN
  • 0163-2787 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3918
DOI
10.1177/016327879601900202
OpenAlex
W2049363298
Cited by
76
References
63
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Evaluation & the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
continuing education, healthcare workers, impact studies, causal explanation, knowledge change, competence, performance change, evaluation methodology
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Education, Medical, Continuing, Educational Measurement, Humans, Research Design

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