独立继续医学教育(CME)/持续专业发展(CPD)必须提供无偏见的信息。

Journal of European CME Pub Date : 2019-12-12 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1080/21614083.2019.1690321
Margarita Guenova, Robert Schäfer, Paolo Palange
{"title":"独立继续医学教育(CME)/持续专业发展(CPD)必须提供无偏见的信息。","authors":"Margarita Guenova, Robert Schäfer, Paolo Palange","doi":"10.1080/21614083.2019.1690321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Physicians commit themselves always to act in the best interests of their patients, and this includes their approach to continuing medical education (CME) as well as continuing professional development (CPD). For many years professional codes, and in some countries also the civil law, have defined that CME/CPD must be independent of commercial interests. Over the last few decades, numerous bodies have introduced CME/CPD accreditation to ensure that the planning and conduct of CME/CPD follows a set of defined standards, with independence of commercial interests as one of the leading principles. Recently industry has proposed that it be accepted by accrediting bodies as a direct provider of accredited CME-CPD. Such a move would not only open the door to the introduction of an inevitable bias in CME/CPD but would jeopardise the professional standing of physicians. Accreditation of CME/CPD currently serves several different purposes, but its credibility depends on whether it can retain its ability to differentiate independent CME/CPD from the provision of commercially framed information.</p>","PeriodicalId":87300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European CME","volume":"8 1","pages":"1690321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d3/19/ZJEC_8_1690321.PMC6913681.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Independent Continuing Medical Education (CME)/Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Must Deliver Unbiased Information.\",\"authors\":\"Margarita Guenova, Robert Schäfer, Paolo Palange\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21614083.2019.1690321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Physicians commit themselves always to act in the best interests of their patients, and this includes their approach to continuing medical education (CME) as well as continuing professional development (CPD). For many years professional codes, and in some countries also the civil law, have defined that CME/CPD must be independent of commercial interests. Over the last few decades, numerous bodies have introduced CME/CPD accreditation to ensure that the planning and conduct of CME/CPD follows a set of defined standards, with independence of commercial interests as one of the leading principles. Recently industry has proposed that it be accepted by accrediting bodies as a direct provider of accredited CME-CPD. Such a move would not only open the door to the introduction of an inevitable bias in CME/CPD but would jeopardise the professional standing of physicians. Accreditation of CME/CPD currently serves several different purposes, but its credibility depends on whether it can retain its ability to differentiate independent CME/CPD from the provision of commercially framed information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European CME\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"1690321\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d3/19/ZJEC_8_1690321.PMC6913681.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European CME\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2019.1690321\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2019.1690321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医生承诺始终以患者的最大利益为出发点,这包括他们的继续医学教育(CME)和持续专业发展(CPD)方法。多年来,专业法典,以及一些国家的民法,都规定CME/CPD必须独立于商业利益。在过去的几十年里,许多机构引入了CME/CPD认证,以确保CME/CPD的规划和实施遵循一套明确的标准,商业利益的独立性是主要原则之一。最近,业界提出,它被认证机构接受为经认证的CME-CPD的直接提供商。这样的举动不仅会为CME/CPD不可避免的偏见打开大门,还会危及医生的职业地位。CME/CPD的认证目前有几个不同的目的,但其可信度取决于它是否能够保持将独立的CME/CPD与提供商业框架信息区分开来的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Independent Continuing Medical Education (CME)/Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Must Deliver Unbiased Information.

Physicians commit themselves always to act in the best interests of their patients, and this includes their approach to continuing medical education (CME) as well as continuing professional development (CPD). For many years professional codes, and in some countries also the civil law, have defined that CME/CPD must be independent of commercial interests. Over the last few decades, numerous bodies have introduced CME/CPD accreditation to ensure that the planning and conduct of CME/CPD follows a set of defined standards, with independence of commercial interests as one of the leading principles. Recently industry has proposed that it be accepted by accrediting bodies as a direct provider of accredited CME-CPD. Such a move would not only open the door to the introduction of an inevitable bias in CME/CPD but would jeopardise the professional standing of physicians. Accreditation of CME/CPD currently serves several different purposes, but its credibility depends on whether it can retain its ability to differentiate independent CME/CPD from the provision of commercially framed information.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信