Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Continuing Medical Education in six European countries: A comparative analysis


Author Info

  • Garattini, Livio
  • Gritti, Sara
  • De Compadri, Paola
  • Casadei, Gianluigi
Registered author(s):


    Objective We examined Continuing Medical Education (CME) systems in a sample of six EU countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Norway, and the UK. The aim of this comparative study was to assess the main country-specific institutional settings applied by governments.Methods A common scheme of analysis was applied to investigate the following variables: (i) CME institutional framework; (ii) benefits and/or penalties to participants; (iii) types of CME activities and system of credits; (iv) accreditation of CME providers and events; (v) CME funding and sponsorship. The analysis involved reviewing the literature on CME policy and interviewing a selected panel of local experts in each country (at least one public manager, one representative of medical associations and one pharmaceutical manager).Results CME is formally compulsory in Austria, France, Italy and the UK, although no sanctions are enforced against non-compliant physicians in practice. The only two countries that offer financial incentives to enhance CME participation are Belgium and Norway, although limited to specific categories of physicians. Formal accreditation of CME providers is required in Austria, France and Italy, while in the other three countries accreditation is focused on activities. Private sponsorship is allowed in all countries but Norway, although within certain limits.Conclusions This comparative exercise provides an overview of the CME policies adopted by six EU countries to regulate both demand and supply. The substantial variability in the organization and accreditation of schemes indicates that much could be done to improve effectiveness. Although further analysis is needed to assess the results of these policies in practice, lessons drawn from this study may help clarify the weaknesses and strengths of single domestic policies in the perspective of pan-European CME harmonization.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Health Policy.

    Volume (Year): 94 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 3 (March)
    Pages: 246-254

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:94:y:2010:i:3:p:246-254

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page:

    Related research

    Keywords: Continuing Medical Education European Union Comparative analysis;


    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Thomas, Dominik & Weegen, Lennart & Walendzik, Anke & Wasem, Jürgen & Jahn, Rebecca, 2011. "Comparative analysis of delivery of primary eye care in three European countries," IBES Diskussionsbeiträge 189, University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty for Economics and Business Administration.


    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:94:y:2010:i:3:p:246-254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei) or () The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask to update the entry or send us the correct address.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.