In an interesting survey-based publication by Dr. Tabas (one of my colleagues) that just came out in Archives of Internal Medicine, we learn more about the ins and outs of CME activities. The authors set out to determine the audience members' opinions about:
- Commercial/ pharmaceutical support and its impact on bias
- Their willingness to pay extra conference registration fees to eliminate outside support
- Based on 5 live CME conferences, 770 of 1347 participants responded to the survey (57% response rate)
- 88% of responders believed that commercial/ pharmaceutical support introduces bias.
- 75% of responders overestimated the amount of funding provided by attendee registration fees (vs commercial support). Registration fees actually don't cover very much in the big-picture of conference costs. Did you know that a cup of coffee cost about $6.53 in a Los Angeles conference and $9.28 in a New York City conference? Ouch. No wonder registration fees are so high across the board!
- Only 42% of responders, however, were willing to pay increased registration fees to reduce/eliminate outside support.
- Some responders supported eliminating amenities by changing printed syllabi to online (56%), by holding the conference at a less desirable venue (50%), and by eliminating free food or snacks (50%).
As more and more academic institutions are imposing a blanket policy ban of commercial/ pharmaceutical support for CME activities, this study suggests that we should first look at the complexities behind hosting a CME conference before taking such sweeping actions. This study takes a fascinating first step in making the true operational costs and clinician perceptions transparent.
Reference
Tabas JA, Boscardin C, Jacobsen DM, Steinman MA, Volberding PA, Baron RB. Clinician attitudes about commercial support of continuing medical education: results of a detailed survey. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171(9), 840-6. PMID: 21555662
.
We had our British Columbia Section of Emergency Medicine conference today, for the first time without any sponsors of any type. No reps, no appeal to attendees to please check out the booths, just a half day of education and a half day of our AGM.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel like my time is valuable enough to pay more for high quality focused education, rather than a conference diluted with various sales pitches...
Dr. J
Dr J, I totally agree with you about being willing to pay a little more for an "undiluted" experience. But at some point, CME conferences have to stay competitive with online CME courses where they're much cheaper and quicker to get CME credit. Congrats on your British Columbia Section of EM stepping out and doing, what I think, is ultimately the right thing.
ReplyDeleteThanks Michelle,
ReplyDeleteI will take it a step further; At this point we have the technology to make an online learning experience far more meaningful than sitting in a lecture at a CME event (too often a poor lecture at that). The relative explosion of web 2.0 resources in EM is just the tip of the iceberg, what we are seeing (I think) is the web's transition from 'democratization of information' towards 'democratization of learning'. Why pay to go to a conference to listen to a lecture on a topic, when I can find a free download of the same topic by an entertaining expert? We are at the point now where there is not just information online but for the web savvy there are guides through that information.
The live conference events that survive and prosper will offer value that is not possible on the internet; eg. some types of simulation, procedural or equipment training, focused small group time with an expert, and networking.
Dr. J
Dr. J: NOW you're talking. I think your comments was hinted at in the article. Many in the CME world are ignoring the new age of "democratization of learning", as you mention. I think you right on when foretelling the future of CME live activities: small-group sessions, hands-on training, and simulation.
ReplyDelete