SACME Virtual Journal Club March Session

Background: Ever since George Miller’s “Continuing Education for What?” in the 1960s, there have been concerns that CME does not work. Sibley’s report in the early 1980s¹ reinforced those concerns. In many ways, these concerns have prevented the field from reaching its full potential, even though since 1977, there have been several meta-analyses that demonstrated that CME is effective, but under certain circumstances. Now, under the auspices of the Accreditation Council for CME, Cervero and Gaines have developed a synthesis of the meta-analyses and have produced a more positive picture of CME effectiveness.

It would be helpful for you to read the report “Effectiveness of CME: Updated synthesis of systematic reviews”, July 2014.

After a short summary of the report, we will examine these questions:
1. Are systematic reviews and meta-analysis the right methodologies to examine the issue of effectiveness?
2. Did the report (or the methodologies) leave something out?
3. What do the findings mean for the day-to-day practice of CME?
4. Do we really know what conclusion #3 (“more interactive, more methods, multiple exposures”) means?
5. When Cervero and Gaines say “it will be important to incorporate the insights from the scientific study of CME effectiveness” (the last phrase in the report), what do they mean?
6. Do you agree with “reforming CME is less a knowledge problem than a political problem of changing the systems of which CME is an important constituent element”?

1. Sibley JC, Sackett DL, Neufeld V, Gerrard B, Rudnick KV, Fraser W. A randomized controlled trial of continuing medical education. N.Engl.J.Med. 1982;306:511-515.

Recommended Readings: 

• Accreditation Council for CME Publishes Two Reports
Addressing Important Issues in CME click to access