• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • eFigure and eTable  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Readers Reply  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Conflict of Interest  • Medical Education  • Medical Ethics  • Health Care Reform  • Drug Therapy  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Results of a Detailed Survey

Jeffrey A. Tabas, MD; Christy Boscardin, PhD; Donna M. Jacobsen, BS; Michael A. Steinman, MD; Paul A. Volberding, MD; Robert B. Baron, MD, MS

Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(9):840-846. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.179

Background  Pharmaceutical and medical device company funding supports up to 60% of accredited continuing medical education (CME) costs in the United States. Some have proposed measures to limit the size, scope, and potential influence of commercial support for CME activities. We sought to determine whether participants at CME activities perceive that commercial support introduces bias, whether this is affected by the amount or type of support, and whether they would be willing to accept higher fees or fewer amenities to decrease the need for such funding.

Methods  We delivered a structured questionnaire to 1347 participants at a series of 5 live CME activities about the impact of commercial support on bias and their willingness to pay additional amounts to eliminate the need for commercial support.

Results  Of the 770 respondents (a 57% response rate), most (88%) believed that commercial support introduces bias, with greater amounts of support introducing greater risk of bias. Only 15%, however, supported elimination of commercial support from CME activities, and less than half (42%) were willing to pay increased registration fees to decrease or eliminate commercial support. Participants who perceived bias from commercial support more frequently agreed to increase registration fees to decrease such support (2- to 3-fold odds ratio). Participants greatly underestimated the costs of ancillary activities, such as food, as well as the degree of support actually provided by commercial funding.

Conclusion  Although the medical professionals responding to this survey were concerned about bias introduced from commercial funding of CME, many were not willing to pay higher fees to offset or eliminate such funding sources.

Author Affiliations: Office of Continuing Medical Education (Drs Tabas, Boscardin, and Baron), Departments of Emergency Medicine (Dr Tabas) and Medicine (Drs Boscardin, Steinman, Volberding, and Baron), University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, and International AIDS Society–USA (Ms Jacobsen and Dr Volberding), San Francisco.

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Continuing Medical Education: Comment on "Clinician Attitudes About Commercial Support of Continuing Medical Education"
Todd Dorman and Ivan L. Silver
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(9):847-848.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Commercial funding of accredited continuing medical education
Tabas and Baron
BMJ 2012;344:e810-e810.
FULL TEXT  

Commentary: Moving The Journal Forward
Wettstein
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2011;39:345-351.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Time for optimism
Yates and Parks
BMJ 2011;342:d3351-d3351.
FULL TEXT  

All you need to read in the other general journals
BMJ 2011;342:d2841-d2841.
FULL TEXT  

RAPID RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE

Commercial free CME is possible
Jeff Whittle
Arch Intern Med Online, 20 Jun 2011.
TEXT