[Comparative evaluation of sponsored and unsponsored continuing medical education]

Abstract

Background and purpose: Continuing medical education (CME), by law, has to be free of commercial influences. Sponsoring of CME in Germany has never been evaluated regarding potential influences on presentation of data and perception of participants. The present paper evaluates the impact of sponsoring on accredited CME events.

Material and methods: All CME events accredited by the Chamber of Physicians North Rhine have to be evaluated by a standard evaluation form. The data of 23,240 physicians participating in 1,019 consecutive CME events (representing 13.5% of all accredited events in the sampling period from February 2002 to May 2003) have been analyzed.

Results: Nearly two thirds of all participants were specialists. 64.6% of all evaluation forms had been sent back from sponsored CME events. Participants in sponsored events were older and, regarding the topic of the presentation, they were more often familiar with and had a diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for the clinical problem presented. Both types of CME events were rated good to excellent regarding a set of evaluation categories, about 28% of all participants felt their personal strategy had been changed by the event. On 7.7% of all evaluation forms (10% in sponsored and 3.4% in sponsored events; p<0.001), the participants noted a commercial bias. The participants who noted a commercial bias were more experienced in the topic discussed, found the presentation of data more often incomplete, and felt a negative impact on their learning behavior.

Conclusion: Sponsored and unsponsored CME events are rated as equally satisfactory by the great majority of participants. Only in about 8% of the evaluation forms a commercial bias was noted, which had a negative impact on the educational value of the CME event. Thus, it seems most likely that the regulatory framework for accreditation is able to prevent large-scale commercial influence on CME events.