D. Samarasekera, Shuh Shing Lee, S. Yeo, Julie Chen, Ardi Findyartini, Nadia Greviana, Budi Wiweko, V. Nadarajah, C. Thuraisingham, Jen-Hung Yang, Lawrence Sherman
{"title":"东亚和东南亚执业医师的持续专业发展状况","authors":"D. Samarasekera, Shuh Shing Lee, S. Yeo, Julie Chen, Ardi Findyartini, Nadia Greviana, Budi Wiweko, V. Nadarajah, C. Thuraisingham, Jen-Hung Yang, Lawrence Sherman","doi":"10.29060/taps.2024-9-3/oa3045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Continuing medical education and continuing professional development activities (CME/CPD) improve the practice of medical practitioners and allowing them to deliver quality clinical care. However, the systems that oversee CME/CPD as well as the processes around design, delivery, and accreditation vary widely across countries. This study explores the state of CME/CPD in the East and South East Asian region from the perspective of medical practitioners, and makes recommendations for improvement.\nMethods: A multi-centre study was conducted across five institutions in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. The study instrument was a 28-item (27 five-point Likert scale and 1 open-ended items) validated questionnaire that focused on perceptions of the current content, processes and gaps in CME/CPD and further contextualised by educational experts from each participating site. Descriptive analysis was undertaken for quantitative data while the data from open-ended item was categorised into similar categories.\nResults: A total of 867 medical practitioners participated in the study. For perceptions on current CME/CPD programme, 75.34% to 88.00% of respondents agreed that CME/CPD increased their skills and competence in providing quality clinical care. For the domain on pharmaceutical industry-supported CME/CPD, the issue of commercial influence was apparent with only 30.24%-56.92% of respondents believing that the CME/CPD in their institution was free from commercial bias. Key areas for improvement for future CME/CPD included 1) content and mode of delivery, 2) independence and funding, 3) administration, 4) location and accessibility and 5) policy and collaboration.\nConclusion: Accessible, practice-relevant content using diverse learning modalities offered by unbiased content providers and subject to transparent and rigorous accreditation processes with minimal administrative hassle are the main considerations for CME/CPD participants.\n\nKeywords: Medical Education, Health Profession Education, Continuing Professional Development, Continuing Medical Education, Accreditation","PeriodicalId":494652,"journal":{"name":"The Asia Pacific Scholar","volume":"4 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The state of Continuing Professional Development in East and Southeast Asia among the medical practitioners\",\"authors\":\"D. Samarasekera, Shuh Shing Lee, S. Yeo, Julie Chen, Ardi Findyartini, Nadia Greviana, Budi Wiweko, V. Nadarajah, C. Thuraisingham, Jen-Hung Yang, Lawrence Sherman\",\"doi\":\"10.29060/taps.2024-9-3/oa3045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Continuing medical education and continuing professional development activities (CME/CPD) improve the practice of medical practitioners and allowing them to deliver quality clinical care. However, the systems that oversee CME/CPD as well as the processes around design, delivery, and accreditation vary widely across countries. This study explores the state of CME/CPD in the East and South East Asian region from the perspective of medical practitioners, and makes recommendations for improvement.\\nMethods: A multi-centre study was conducted across five institutions in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. The study instrument was a 28-item (27 five-point Likert scale and 1 open-ended items) validated questionnaire that focused on perceptions of the current content, processes and gaps in CME/CPD and further contextualised by educational experts from each participating site. Descriptive analysis was undertaken for quantitative data while the data from open-ended item was categorised into similar categories.\\nResults: A total of 867 medical practitioners participated in the study. For perceptions on current CME/CPD programme, 75.34% to 88.00% of respondents agreed that CME/CPD increased their skills and competence in providing quality clinical care. For the domain on pharmaceutical industry-supported CME/CPD, the issue of commercial influence was apparent with only 30.24%-56.92% of respondents believing that the CME/CPD in their institution was free from commercial bias. Key areas for improvement for future CME/CPD included 1) content and mode of delivery, 2) independence and funding, 3) administration, 4) location and accessibility and 5) policy and collaboration.\\nConclusion: Accessible, practice-relevant content using diverse learning modalities offered by unbiased content providers and subject to transparent and rigorous accreditation processes with minimal administrative hassle are the main considerations for CME/CPD participants.\\n\\nKeywords: Medical Education, Health Profession Education, Continuing Professional Development, Continuing Medical Education, Accreditation\",\"PeriodicalId\":494652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Asia Pacific Scholar\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Asia Pacific Scholar\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29060/taps.2024-9-3/oa3045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Asia Pacific Scholar","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29060/taps.2024-9-3/oa3045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The state of Continuing Professional Development in East and Southeast Asia among the medical practitioners
Introduction: Continuing medical education and continuing professional development activities (CME/CPD) improve the practice of medical practitioners and allowing them to deliver quality clinical care. However, the systems that oversee CME/CPD as well as the processes around design, delivery, and accreditation vary widely across countries. This study explores the state of CME/CPD in the East and South East Asian region from the perspective of medical practitioners, and makes recommendations for improvement.
Methods: A multi-centre study was conducted across five institutions in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. The study instrument was a 28-item (27 five-point Likert scale and 1 open-ended items) validated questionnaire that focused on perceptions of the current content, processes and gaps in CME/CPD and further contextualised by educational experts from each participating site. Descriptive analysis was undertaken for quantitative data while the data from open-ended item was categorised into similar categories.
Results: A total of 867 medical practitioners participated in the study. For perceptions on current CME/CPD programme, 75.34% to 88.00% of respondents agreed that CME/CPD increased their skills and competence in providing quality clinical care. For the domain on pharmaceutical industry-supported CME/CPD, the issue of commercial influence was apparent with only 30.24%-56.92% of respondents believing that the CME/CPD in their institution was free from commercial bias. Key areas for improvement for future CME/CPD included 1) content and mode of delivery, 2) independence and funding, 3) administration, 4) location and accessibility and 5) policy and collaboration.
Conclusion: Accessible, practice-relevant content using diverse learning modalities offered by unbiased content providers and subject to transparent and rigorous accreditation processes with minimal administrative hassle are the main considerations for CME/CPD participants.
Keywords: Medical Education, Health Profession Education, Continuing Professional Development, Continuing Medical Education, Accreditation