Considering the Cost-Effectiveness of Accredited Continuing Medical Education: A Landscape Analysis of Economic Concepts in Continuing Medical Education Research

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: In health care, cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates changes in health outcomes as a function of costs. The cost-effectiveness of continuing professional development for health care providers has not been historically well characterized despite substantial investment. This literature review identified publications considering the costs and cost-effectiveness of accredited continuing medical education activities. METHODS: Searches were conducted for English language records in PubMed and the gray literature using a 10-year lookback period from March 10, 2023. Search terms included concepts related to continuing medical education, cost, effect, and utilization. One reviewer conducted title/abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction, with direction and adjudication of search and screening concepts provided by the lead advisor. Publications were categorized as related to costs of an educational intervention (Concept 1) and/or the impact of education on health care costs (Concept 2). Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 668 database records were screened, 125 (19%) underwent full-text review, and 25 of 125 (20%) were accepted; 7 of 351 (2%) gray literature sources were accepted for a total of 32 included records. The most common reason for rejection was not being an accredited activity. Of the 32 records, 27 (84%) were related to Concept 1 only, 3 (9%) to Concept 2 only, and 2 (6%) to both Concepts 1 and 2. Approximately half (n = 19, 59%) mentioned costs without supporting data. DISCUSSION: These findings show that considerations of cost and cost-effectiveness are rare in the accredited continuing medical education literature, which may limit how the value of continuing medical education is characterized.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.