Cited by 172Innovations in Medical EducationHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Continuing Medical Education Effect on Practice Performance

Davis, Dave, Galbraith, Robert·2009·Chest

Abstract

Background There has been sizable debate and widespread skepticism about the effect of continuing medical education (CME) on the performance of physicians in the practice setting. This portion of the review was undertaken to examine that effect.Methods The guideline panel used data from a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of CME developed by The Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Center, focusing on the effect of CME on clinical performance.Results The review found 105 studies, which evaluated the impact of CME on short- and long-term physician practice performance. Nearly 60% met objectives relative to changing clinical performance in prescribing; screening; counseling about smoking cessation, diet, and sexual practices; guideline adherence; and other topics. Single live and multiple media appeared to be generally positive in their effect, print media much less so. Multiple educational techniques were more successful at changing provider performance than single techniques. The amount or frequency of exposure to CME activities appeared to have little effect on behavior change.Conclusions Overall, CME, especially using live or multiple media and multiple educational techniques, is generally effective in changing physician performance. More research, however, is needed that focuses on the specific types of media and educational techniques that lead to the greatest improvements in performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1378/chest.08-2517

Cites

120 of 120 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 121 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davis, D., & Galbraith, R.
Affiliations
  • Association of American Medical Colleges (US)
  • National Board of Medical Examiners (US)
Corresponding author
Davis, Dave
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
135
Issue
3
Pages
42S-48S
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3191707265
Cited by
172
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 14
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CHEST Journal (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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
continuing medical education, clinical performance, drug prescribing, screening, smoking cessation counseling, nutrition counseling, guideline adherence, instructional media, behavior change
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Continuing, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Quality of Health Care, Thoracic Diseases, United States, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine

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