Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLöffler, Christin
dc.contributor.authorAltiner, Attila
dc.contributor.authorBlumenthal, Sandra
dc.contributor.authorBruno, Pascale
dc.contributor.authorDe Sutter, An
dc.contributor.authorDe Vos, Bart J.
dc.contributor.authorDinant, Geert-Jan
dc.contributor.authorDuerden, Martin
dc.contributor.authorDunais, Brigitte
dc.contributor.authorEgidi, Günther
dc.contributor.authorGibis, Bernhard
dc.contributor.authorMelbye, Hasse
dc.contributor.authorRouquier, Frederic
dc.contributor.authorRosemann, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorTouboul-Lundgren, Pia
dc.contributor.authorFeldmeier, Gregor
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-27T12:55:06Z
dc.date.available2022-12-27T12:55:06Z
dc.date.issued2022-11-07
dc.description.abstractBackground - Several changes have led to general practitioners (GPs) working in a more differentiated setting today and being supported by other health professions. As practice changes, primary care specific continuing medical education (CME) may also need to adapt. By comparing different primary care specific CME approaches for GPs across Europe, we aim at identifying challenges and opportunities for future development.<p> <p>Methods - Narrative review assessing, analysing and comparing CME programs for general practitioners across different north-western European countries (UK, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Switzerland, and France). Templates containing detailed items across seven dimensions of country-specific CME were developed and used. These dimensions are role of primary care within the health system, legal regulations regarding CME, published aims of CME, actual content of CME, operationalisation, funding and sponsorship, and evaluation.<p> <p>Results - General practice specific CME in the countries under consideration are presented and comparatively analysed based on the dimensions defined in advance. This shows that each of the countries examined has different strengths and weaknesses. A clear pioneer cannot be identified. Nevertheless, numerous impulses for optimising future GP training systems can be derived from the examples presented.<p> <p>Conclusions - Independent of country specific CME programs several fields of potential action were identified: the development of curriculum objectives for GPs, the promotion of innovative teaching and learning formats, the use of synergies in specialist GP training and CME, the creation of accessible yet comprehensive learning platforms, the establishment of clear rules for sponsorship, the development of new financing models, the promotion of fair competition between CME providers, and scientifically based evaluation.en_US
dc.identifier.citationLöffler, Altiner, Blumenthal, Bruno, De Sutter, De Vos, Dinant, Duerden, Dunais, Egidi, Gibis, Melbye, Rouquier, Rosemann, Touboul-Lundgren, Feldmeier. Challenges and opportunities for general practice specific CME in Europe – a narrative review of seven countries. BMC Medical Education. 2022;22(1)en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2087029
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12909-022-03832-7
dc.identifier.issn1472-6920
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/27927
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBMCen_US
dc.relation.journalBMC Medical Education
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2022 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en_US
dc.titleChallenges and opportunities for general practice specific CME in Europe – a narrative review of seven countriesen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)