继续医学教育:了解很少参加的全科医生,丹麦全科医生的横断面问卷研究。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Helle Ibsen, Niels Kristian Kjaer, Jens Søndergaard, Igor Švab, Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt
{"title":"继续医学教育:了解很少参加的全科医生,丹麦全科医生的横断面问卷研究。","authors":"Helle Ibsen, Niels Kristian Kjaer, Jens Søndergaard, Igor Švab, Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-07958-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuing medical education (CME) is vital for patient care, society, and general practitioners' (GPs) wellbeing. Despite its benefits, some GPs attend CME infrequently. While GPs' preferences for CME are well documented, it is unclear if these preferences are shared by infrequent users. Exploring infrequent CME users' preferences and educational needs is essential to engage them effectively.</p><p><strong>Aims of the study: </strong>To explore infrequent users' preferences for CME formats and their attitudes towards mandatory CME compared to their CME attending GP colleagues.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted among all 3,257 GPs in Denmark. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responders were categorized into four CME user types: frequent (42%), partial (44%), infrequent (14%), and \"do not know\" (< 1%). All responders highly valued teachers and course leaders with insight into general practice. Overall, interactive learning activities and formats directly applicable to clinical practice were preferred, while online education, self-study, fact-based lectures, and sponsored meetings ranked lower. Infrequent users were more positive than frequent users towards reading on their own and fact-based lectures without participant involvement and short travel time. They were less positive about time-consuming learning such as week-long courses and courses abroad. Among infrequent users, 72% were principally opposed to mandatory CME setups, whereas a much smaller proportion opposed the current extent of mandatory CME in Denmark. This suggests a difference between practical acceptance and principled opposition. Despite infrequent users' reluctance towards participant involvement, they were open to small group learning and in-practice formats.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Teachers and course leaders with profound insight in general practice and patient-focused content seem to be an unquestionable requirement for successful CME. Infrequent users' reluctance towards participant involvement, but openness to small group learning and in-practice formats should be used strategically. Offering a variety of accessible, smaller-scale courses supports autonomy and diversity. Mandatory CME is not seen exclusively negatively and can be accepted if perceived relevant or as a valuable break or educational guarantee. However, it must be balanced with voluntary options to avoid causing demotivation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"1400"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuing medical education: understanding general practitioners who rarely attend, a cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs.\",\"authors\":\"Helle Ibsen, Niels Kristian Kjaer, Jens Søndergaard, Igor Švab, Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12909-025-07958-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuing medical education (CME) is vital for patient care, society, and general practitioners' (GPs) wellbeing. Despite its benefits, some GPs attend CME infrequently. While GPs' preferences for CME are well documented, it is unclear if these preferences are shared by infrequent users. Exploring infrequent CME users' preferences and educational needs is essential to engage them effectively.</p><p><strong>Aims of the study: </strong>To explore infrequent users' preferences for CME formats and their attitudes towards mandatory CME compared to their CME attending GP colleagues.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted among all 3,257 GPs in Denmark. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responders were categorized into four CME user types: frequent (42%), partial (44%), infrequent (14%), and \\\"do not know\\\" (< 1%). All responders highly valued teachers and course leaders with insight into general practice. Overall, interactive learning activities and formats directly applicable to clinical practice were preferred, while online education, self-study, fact-based lectures, and sponsored meetings ranked lower. Infrequent users were more positive than frequent users towards reading on their own and fact-based lectures without participant involvement and short travel time. They were less positive about time-consuming learning such as week-long courses and courses abroad. Among infrequent users, 72% were principally opposed to mandatory CME setups, whereas a much smaller proportion opposed the current extent of mandatory CME in Denmark. This suggests a difference between practical acceptance and principled opposition. Despite infrequent users' reluctance towards participant involvement, they were open to small group learning and in-practice formats.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Teachers and course leaders with profound insight in general practice and patient-focused content seem to be an unquestionable requirement for successful CME. Infrequent users' reluctance towards participant involvement, but openness to small group learning and in-practice formats should be used strategically. Offering a variety of accessible, smaller-scale courses supports autonomy and diversity. Mandatory CME is not seen exclusively negatively and can be accepted if perceived relevant or as a valuable break or educational guarantee. However, it must be balanced with voluntary options to avoid causing demotivation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"1400\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07958-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07958-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:继续医学教育(CME)对患者护理、社会和全科医生(gp)的健康至关重要。尽管有诸多好处,但一些全科医生很少参加CME。虽然全科医生对CME的偏好有充分的记录,但尚不清楚这些偏好是否与不经常使用CME的人相同。探索不经常使用CME的用户的偏好和教育需求对于有效地吸引他们至关重要。本研究的目的:探讨与参加CME的全科医生同事相比,不经常使用CME的用户对CME格式的偏好以及他们对强制性CME的态度。方法:对丹麦3257名全科医生进行横断面问卷调查。采用描述性统计和逻辑回归分析。结果:应答者被分为四种CME使用者类型:频繁(42%)、部分(44%)、不频繁(14%)和“不知道”(结论:在全科实践和以患者为中心的内容方面具有深刻见解的教师和课程负责人似乎是成功CME的毋庸置疑的要求。不经常使用的用户对参与者参与的不情愿,但对小组学习和实践形式的开放应该战略性地加以利用。提供各种可访问的,小规模的课程支持自主性和多样性。强制性CME并不完全是负面的,如果认为相关或作为有价值的休息或教育保证,可以接受。然而,它必须与自愿选择相平衡,以避免导致士气低落。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Continuing medical education: understanding general practitioners who rarely attend, a cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs.

Background: Continuing medical education (CME) is vital for patient care, society, and general practitioners' (GPs) wellbeing. Despite its benefits, some GPs attend CME infrequently. While GPs' preferences for CME are well documented, it is unclear if these preferences are shared by infrequent users. Exploring infrequent CME users' preferences and educational needs is essential to engage them effectively.

Aims of the study: To explore infrequent users' preferences for CME formats and their attitudes towards mandatory CME compared to their CME attending GP colleagues.

Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted among all 3,257 GPs in Denmark. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were used.

Results: Responders were categorized into four CME user types: frequent (42%), partial (44%), infrequent (14%), and "do not know" (< 1%). All responders highly valued teachers and course leaders with insight into general practice. Overall, interactive learning activities and formats directly applicable to clinical practice were preferred, while online education, self-study, fact-based lectures, and sponsored meetings ranked lower. Infrequent users were more positive than frequent users towards reading on their own and fact-based lectures without participant involvement and short travel time. They were less positive about time-consuming learning such as week-long courses and courses abroad. Among infrequent users, 72% were principally opposed to mandatory CME setups, whereas a much smaller proportion opposed the current extent of mandatory CME in Denmark. This suggests a difference between practical acceptance and principled opposition. Despite infrequent users' reluctance towards participant involvement, they were open to small group learning and in-practice formats.

Conclusion: Teachers and course leaders with profound insight in general practice and patient-focused content seem to be an unquestionable requirement for successful CME. Infrequent users' reluctance towards participant involvement, but openness to small group learning and in-practice formats should be used strategically. Offering a variety of accessible, smaller-scale courses supports autonomy and diversity. Mandatory CME is not seen exclusively negatively and can be accepted if perceived relevant or as a valuable break or educational guarantee. However, it must be balanced with voluntary options to avoid causing demotivation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
×
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