David A Cook1, Christopher R Stephenson2, John M Wilkinson3, Stephen Maloney4, Barbara L Baasch Thomas5, Larry J Prokop6, Jonathan Foo7. 1. D.A. Cook is professor of medicine and medical education, director, Section of Research and Data Analytics, School of Continuous Professional Development, director of education science, Office of Applied Scholarship and Education Science, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, and consultant, Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2383-4633. 2. C.R. Stephenson is assistant professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, associate program director, Mayo-Rochester Internal Medicine Residency Program, and consultant, Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8537-392X. 3. J.M. Wilkinson is associate professor of family medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, and consultant, Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1156-8577. 4. S. Maloney is professor of health professions education and deputy head of school, Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Victoria, Australia; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2612-5162. 5. B.L. Baasch Thomas is administrator, School of Continuous Professional Development, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota. 6. L.J. Prokop is reference librarian, Plummer Library, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 7. J. Foo is a lecturer, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Victoria, Australia; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4533-8307.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Nearly all health care professionals engage in continuous professional development (CPD), yet little is known about the cost and cost-effectiveness of physician CPD. Clarification of key concepts, comprehensive identification of published work, and determination of research gaps would facilitate application of existing evidence and planning for future investigations. The authors sought to systematically map study themes, methods, and outcomes in peer-reviewed literature on the cost and value of physician CPD. METHOD: The authors conducted a scoping review, systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases for comparative economic evaluations of CPD for practicing physicians through April 2020. Two reviewers, working independently, screened all articles for inclusion. Three reviewers iteratively reviewed all included articles to inductively identify key features including participants, educational interventions, study designs, cost ingredients, and cost analyses. Two reviewers then independently reexamined all included articles to code these features. RESULTS: Of 3,338 potentially eligible studies, 111 were included. Physician specialties included internal, family, or general medicine (80 studies [72%]), surgery (14 studies [13%]), and medicine subspecialties (7 studies [6%]). Topics most often addressed general medicine (45 studies [41%]) or appropriate drug use (37 studies [33%]). Eighty-seven studies (78%) compared CPD with no intervention. Sixty-three studies (57%) reported the cost of training, and 79 (71%) evaluated the economic impact (money saved/lost following CPD). Training cost ingredients (median 3 itemized per study) and economic impact ingredients (median 1 per study) were infrequently and incompletely identified, quantified, or priced. Twenty-seven studies (24%) reported cost-impact expressions such as cost-effectiveness ratio or net value. Nineteen studies (17%) reported sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Studies evaluating the costs and economic impact of physician CPD are few. Gaps exist in identification, quantification, pricing, and analysis of cost outcomes. The authors propose a comprehensive framework for appraising ingredients and a preliminary reference case for economic evaluations.
PURPOSE: Nearly all health care professionals engage in continuous professional development (CPD), yet little is known about the cost and cost-effectiveness of physician CPD. Clarification of key concepts, comprehensive identification of published work, and determination of research gaps would facilitate application of existing evidence and planning for future investigations. The authors sought to systematically map study themes, methods, and outcomes in peer-reviewed literature on the cost and value of physician CPD. METHOD: The authors conducted a scoping review, systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases for comparative economic evaluations of CPD for practicing physicians through April 2020. Two reviewers, working independently, screened all articles for inclusion. Three reviewers iteratively reviewed all included articles to inductively identify key features including participants, educational interventions, study designs, cost ingredients, and cost analyses. Two reviewers then independently reexamined all included articles to code these features. RESULTS: Of 3,338 potentially eligible studies, 111 were included. Physician specialties included internal, family, or general medicine (80 studies [72%]), surgery (14 studies [13%]), and medicine subspecialties (7 studies [6%]). Topics most often addressed general medicine (45 studies [41%]) or appropriate drug use (37 studies [33%]). Eighty-seven studies (78%) compared CPD with no intervention. Sixty-three studies (57%) reported the cost of training, and 79 (71%) evaluated the economic impact (money saved/lost following CPD). Training cost ingredients (median 3 itemized per study) and economic impact ingredients (median 1 per study) were infrequently and incompletely identified, quantified, or priced. Twenty-seven studies (24%) reported cost-impact expressions such as cost-effectiveness ratio or net value. Nineteen studies (17%) reported sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Studies evaluating the costs and economic impact of physician CPD are few. Gaps exist in identification, quantification, pricing, and analysis of cost outcomes. The authors propose a comprehensive framework for appraising ingredients and a preliminary reference case for economic evaluations.