Exploring factors of physicians’ preferences for continuing medical education

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Achieving sustainability in continuing medical education (CME) involves regular assessment of the evolving needs of healthcare professionals regarding their competencies and updates in educational content accordingly. This study aimed to investigate the key areas and competencies that physicians in Serbia prioritize for their professional development and to analyze the factors associated with these competencies. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 2,625 physicians who are members of the medical chamber in Serbia. Besides similar studies, the Delphi process among medical experts served to create the research instruments, while obtained data were analyzed using factor analysis and robust regression analysis. RESULTS: The results pointed to a significant association between the scores in all identified domains (management, clinical practice, communication, public health, essentials and clinical emergency) and female gender. The score in the communication domain was additionally associated with work in privately owned institutions (B = 0.563). The scores in the public health domain and the basic medical skills (essentials domain) were additionally associated with age (B = 0.077 and B = 0.100), work in a primary healthcare institution (B = 2.327 and B = 2.155) and being a specialist (B=-1.795 and B=-2.901). The score on the clinical emergency domain, besides the female gender, was associated with work in primary health care (B = 0.748), being a specialist (B=-1.592) and being a subspecialist (B=-1.023). CONCLUSION: This research identified gaps in CME/CPD program knowledge and design. It outlined competency groups developed with expert consensus. Proposed actions include integrating key competencies and developing online self-assessment tools for everyday practice. This can help physicians and program organizers focus on essential competencies and exclude non-evidence-based ones.

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