IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0237632.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What helps and hinders doctors in engaging in continuous professional development? An explanatory sequential design

Author

Listed:
  • Carrie H K Yam
  • Sian M Griffiths
  • Eng-Kiong Yeoh

Abstract

Background: Licensure and registration are the traditional approaches to ensure minimally acceptable standards of care for practice. However, due to advances in medical technology and changes in clinical practice, the knowledge and skills obtained from basic education and training may rapidly become out of date. There is no mandated, structured and ongoing mechanism to assess all doctors’ competence in Hong Kong. This paper assessed doctors’ perceived needs for continuous professional development, and to identify facilitators and barriers that are likely to influence the implementation of compulsory continuous professional development for maintaining professional competence and ensuring patient safety. Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed method design with two distinct interactive phases was adopted comprising a postal self-administered questionnaire survey among a random sample of 2,459 of doctors (Phase 1), followed by individual interviews of a stratified sample of 30 questionnaire respondents for the subsequent qualitative analysis (Phase 2). Results: The majority of doctors (over 90%) agreed the importance of continuous professional development to update knowledge and skills. However, just 30.7% of non-specialists compared with 65.4% of specialists agreed it would be desirable for continuous professional development to be a requirement for renewal of licenses. A relatively higher percentage of non-specialists compared with specialists reported barriers to participation such as accessibility, availability and relevance of the content of the programmes. Facilitators for uptake included more convenient schedule and location, relevant content, and incentives for participation such as making this a pre-condition for enrolling in government-funded services. Conclusions: To address the needs of individual doctors, the spheres of practice, personal preferences and learning styles should be considered in deciding the content and processes of continuous professional development. Flexibility is also an important principle. A learning model, incentives for participation and a compliance strategy (instead of deterrence) could be effective strategy for continuous professional development.

Suggested Citation

  • Carrie H K Yam & Sian M Griffiths & Eng-Kiong Yeoh, 2020. "What helps and hinders doctors in engaging in continuous professional development? An explanatory sequential design," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-18, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237632
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237632
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237632&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0237632?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237632. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.