General Practitioner Engagement with Continuing Professional Development: A Scoping Review Protocol.

Journal of CME Pub Date : 2026-02-25 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1080/28338073.2026.2627055
Lisa G Sullivan, Svetlana M King, Raechel A Damarell, Wendy Hu
{"title":"General Practitioner Engagement with Continuing Professional Development: A Scoping Review Protocol.","authors":"Lisa G Sullivan, Svetlana M King, Raechel A Damarell, Wendy Hu","doi":"10.1080/28338073.2026.2627055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Continuing professional development (CPD) is a cornerstone of lifelong learning for general practitioners (GPs), encompassing both formal (e.g. courses, workshops) and informal (e.g. peer learning, self-directed) activities. While CPD is increasingly mandated through credit-based systems, concerns have emerged that such frameworks may encourage compliance-driven behaviour, limiting relevance to clinical practice and undermining professional autonomy. This scoping review will examine how GPs engage with CPD in terms of decision-making, motivation, and perceived value, and factors influencing their choice of CPD activities. This will be addressed through two sub-questions: (1) What personal, professional, contextual, organisational or systemic factors influence CPD choices? (2) What strategies do GPs use to identify, select, and prioritise CPD activities? A comprehensive systematic search will be conducted across MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ERIC, Scopus, Informit, and APA PsycINFO, supplemented by grey literature from stakeholder organisations, conference websites, and structured Google searches. Eligible studies will include empirical research on GPs' CPD engagement in primary care settings within systems that mandate CPD participation. The review will follow JBI methodology and will be reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. By synthesising current evidence, the review seeks to inform the design of practitioner-centred CPD models that support reflective practice, lifelong learning, and improved patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":73675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of CME","volume":"15 1","pages":"2627055"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12947283/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/28338073.2026.2627055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Continuing professional development (CPD) is a cornerstone of lifelong learning for general practitioners (GPs), encompassing both formal (e.g. courses, workshops) and informal (e.g. peer learning, self-directed) activities. While CPD is increasingly mandated through credit-based systems, concerns have emerged that such frameworks may encourage compliance-driven behaviour, limiting relevance to clinical practice and undermining professional autonomy. This scoping review will examine how GPs engage with CPD in terms of decision-making, motivation, and perceived value, and factors influencing their choice of CPD activities. This will be addressed through two sub-questions: (1) What personal, professional, contextual, organisational or systemic factors influence CPD choices? (2) What strategies do GPs use to identify, select, and prioritise CPD activities? A comprehensive systematic search will be conducted across MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ERIC, Scopus, Informit, and APA PsycINFO, supplemented by grey literature from stakeholder organisations, conference websites, and structured Google searches. Eligible studies will include empirical research on GPs' CPD engagement in primary care settings within systems that mandate CPD participation. The review will follow JBI methodology and will be reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. By synthesising current evidence, the review seeks to inform the design of practitioner-centred CPD models that support reflective practice, lifelong learning, and improved patient care.

全科医生参与持续专业发展:范围审查方案。
持续专业发展(CPD)是全科医生终身学习的基石,包括正式(如课程、讲习班)和非正式(如同侪学习、自我指导)活动。虽然CPD越来越多地通过基于信用的系统强制执行,但人们担心这种框架可能会鼓励遵从性行为,限制与临床实践的相关性,损害专业自主权。本综述将研究全科医生在决策、动机和感知价值方面如何参与持续专业进修,以及影响他们选择持续专业进修活动的因素。这将通过两个子问题来解决:(1)哪些个人、专业、环境、组织或系统因素影响持续专业进修的选择?(2)全科医生使用什么策略来识别、选择和优先安排持续专业进修活动?将在MEDLINE (Ovid)、Embase (Ovid)、ERIC、Scopus、Informit和APA PsycINFO中进行全面的系统搜索,并辅以来自利益相关者组织、会议网站和结构化谷歌搜索的灰色文献。合格的研究将包括在强制CPD参与的系统内对全科医生在初级保健机构的CPD参与的实证研究。审查将遵循JBI方法,并将按照PRISMA-ScR指南进行报告。通过综合现有证据,本综述旨在为以医生为中心的CPD模式的设计提供信息,以支持反思性实践、终身学习和改善患者护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书