Barriers for continuous medical education: a cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-10-29 Print Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0228
Helle Ibsen, Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt, Jesper Lykkegaard, Jens Søndergaard, Igor Švab, Niels Kristian Kjaer
{"title":"Barriers for continuous medical education: a cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs.","authors":"Helle Ibsen, Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt, Jesper Lykkegaard, Jens Søndergaard, Igor Švab, Niels Kristian Kjaer","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>GPs' participation in continuous medical education (CME) is essential for patient care, GPs' wellbeing, and healthcare expenditure. However, one-quarter of Danish GPs did not use their reimbursement for CME in 2022. Knowledge of barriers for participating in CME is limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To analyse the barriers GPs face to participation in CME, and patterns in perceived barriers.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>A cross-sectional questionnaire study design was used. The study population comprised all 3257 GPs in Denmark who, in May 2023, were registered as entitled to reimbursement for CME.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The response rate was <i>n</i> = 1303/3257 (40%). Based on a question about use of CME, the responders were divided into 'frequent', 'partial', and 'seldom' users. Partial and seldom users answered questions about barriers related to CME (<i>n</i> = 726). The presence of barriers was quantified, and a latent class analysis (LCA) was used to stratify GPs according to their barrier patterns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The most frequent barriers were as follows: too busy (67%); fully booked courses (45%); and no substitute or locum doctor (39%). Based on the LCA, we found three distinctive patterns, clustering around the following: GPs from clinics with no tradition for CME (class 1, 17%); GPs who used time on professional work outside clinic (teaching, organisational work) (class 2, 43%); and GPs who were personally or professionally affected (class 3, 40%). Singled-handed and male GPs were slightly overrepresented among seldom users.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We have identified barriers for CME. We found three different profiles of GPs who perceived different patterns of barriers. Identified patterns in barriers should be considered in future CME initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11523502/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: GPs' participation in continuous medical education (CME) is essential for patient care, GPs' wellbeing, and healthcare expenditure. However, one-quarter of Danish GPs did not use their reimbursement for CME in 2022. Knowledge of barriers for participating in CME is limited.

Aim: To analyse the barriers GPs face to participation in CME, and patterns in perceived barriers.

Design & setting: A cross-sectional questionnaire study design was used. The study population comprised all 3257 GPs in Denmark who, in May 2023, were registered as entitled to reimbursement for CME.

Method: The response rate was n = 1303/3257 (40%). Based on a question about use of CME, the responders were divided into 'frequent', 'partial', and 'seldom' users. Partial and seldom users answered questions about barriers related to CME (n = 726). The presence of barriers was quantified, and a latent class analysis (LCA) was used to stratify GPs according to their barrier patterns.

Results: The most frequent barriers were as follows: too busy (67%); fully booked courses (45%); and no substitute or locum doctor (39%). Based on the LCA, we found three distinctive patterns, clustering around the following: GPs from clinics with no tradition for CME (class 1, 17%); GPs who used time on professional work outside clinic (teaching, organisational work) (class 2, 43%); and GPs who were personally or professionally affected (class 3, 40%). Singled-handed and male GPs were slightly overrepresented among seldom users.

Conclusion: We have identified barriers for CME. We found three different profiles of GPs who perceived different patterns of barriers. Identified patterns in barriers should be considered in future CME initiatives.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
继续医学教育的障碍:对丹麦全科医生的横断面问卷调查。
背景:全科医生(GPs)参加继续医学教育(CME)对患者护理、全科医生的健康和医疗支出至关重要。2022 年,四分之一的丹麦全科医生没有使用他们的继续医学教育报销额度。目的:分析全科医生参与继续医学教育的障碍以及感知障碍的模式:研究对象包括丹麦所有3257名全科医生,他们在2023年5月登记为有权获得继续医学教育报销:回复率为1303/3257(40%)。根据是否使用继续医学教育的问题,受访者被分为经常使用、部分使用和很少使用。部分和很少使用的受访者回答了与继续医学教育相关的障碍问题(人数=726)。对存在的障碍进行了量化,并使用潜类分析(LCA)根据障碍模式对全科医生进行分层:最常见的障碍是太忙(68%)、课程排满(47%)和没有替代者(41%)。根据 LCA,我们发现了三种不同的模式,主要集中在以下几个方面:来自没有继续医学教育传统的诊所的全科医生(17%),将时间用于诊所以外的专业工作(教学、组织工作)的全科医生(43%),以及受到个人或专业影响的全科医生(40%)。很少使用继续医学教育的全科医生中,单手和男性的比例略高:我们发现了继续医学教育的障碍。我们发现有三种不同的全科医生认为存在不同的障碍。在未来的继续医学教育活动中,应考虑到所发现的障碍模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review. How do GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients? A qualitative study of GP-patient consultations. Could a behaviour change intervention be used to address under-recognition of work-related asthma in primary care? A systematic review. Editorial: Global health inequity and primary care. Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study of GP experiences.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1