Baasch Thomas, Barbara L

Purpose Nearly all health care professionals engage in continuous professional development (CPD), yet little is known about the cost and cost-effectiveness of physician CPD. Clarification of key concepts, comprehensive identification of published work, and determination of research gaps would facilitate application of existing evidence and planning for future investigations. The authors sought to systematically map study themes, methods, and outcomes in peer-reviewed literature on the cost and value of physician CPD. Method The authors conducted a scoping review, systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases for comparative economic evaluations of CPD for practicing physicians through April 2020. Two reviewers, working independently, screened all articles for inclusion. Three reviewers iteratively reviewed all included articles to inductively identify key features including participants, educational interventions, study designs, cost ingredients, and cost analyses. Two reviewers then independently reexamined all included articles to code these features. Results Of 3,338 potentially eligible studies, 111 were included. Physician specialties included internal, family, or general medicine (80 studies [72%]), surgery (14 studies [13%]), and medicine subspecialties (7 studies [6%]). Topics most often addressed general medicine (45 studies [41%]) or appropriate drug use (37 studies [33%]). Eighty-seven studies (78%) compared CPD with no intervention. Sixty-three studies (57%) reported the cost of training, and 79 (71%) evaluated the economic impact (money saved/lost following CPD). Training cost ingredients (median 3 itemized per study) and economic impact ingredients (median 1 per study) were infrequently and incompletely identified, quantified, or priced. Twenty-seven studies (24%) reported cost–impact expressions such as cost-effectiveness ratio or net value. Nineteen studies (17%) reported sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Studies evaluating the costs and economic impact of physician CPD are few. Gaps exist in identification, quantification, pricing, and analysis of cost outcomes. The authors propose a comprehensive framework for appraising ingredients and a preliminary reference case for economic evaluations.

Purpose To explore what influences clinicians in selecting continuing medical education (CME) activities in the United States. Method In August 2018, the authors conducted an Internet-based national survey, sampling 100 respondents from each of 5 groups: family medicine physicians, internal medicine and hospitalist physicians, medicine specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. In total, 1,895 clinicians were invited and 500 (26%) responded. Questions addressed the selection and anticipated use of CME delivery modalities and perceived characteristics of specific CME providers. Response formats used best–worst scaling or 5-point ordinal response options. Results The factors identified as most important in selecting CME activities were topic (best–worst scaling net positivity 0.54), quality of content (0.51), availability of CME credit (0.43), and clinical practice focus (0.41), while referral frequency (−0.57) ranked lowest. The activities that the respondents anticipated using most in the future were live (mean 3.8 [1 = not likely, 5 = very likely]), online (mean 3.5), point-of-care (mean 3.5), and print-based (mean 3.5) activities. For online CME, the features of greatest appeal were that learning could be done when clinicians had time (mean 4.4), at their own pace (mean 4.2), and at lower cost (mean 4.2). For live CME, the features of greatest appeal were that the subject was best taught using this modality (mean 4.0), or the activity was located in a destination spot (mean 4.0) or a regional location (mean 3.9). When rating specific CME providers, most academic institutions received relatively high ratings for research focus and clinical practice focus, whereas commercial providers had slightly higher ratings for ease of access. Responses were generally similar across clinician types and age groups. Conclusions Physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants are interested in using a variety of CME delivery modalities. Appealing features of online and live CME were different.