MeetingsNet CME Survey: Pro or Con Industry Support?

By bmartin on February 5, 2008 1:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today, the Carlat Psychiatry Blog points to the recently published results of the 2007 annual CME survey of physicians conducted by MeetingsNet.com, and in more or less predictable fashion, Dr. Carlat leads by stressing the overwhelming perceived bias in CME among survey respondents (>80%). He concludes today’s brief post, “[L]et's hope that the ACCME and AMA take note, both of which still strongly support industry-funded CME.” However, a closer look at the survey results may be more heartening than distressing to anyone who chooses to defend industry-supported CME. My take on the survey results from the MeetingsNet publication follows, with a somewhat more nuanced interpretation of the findings than Dr. Carlat may otherwise provide on the subject.

With respect to observed commercial bias in certified CME activities (below), while it is true that 82% responded that they observed some degree of commercial bias in certified CME activities—meaning something more than “never”—more than half (56%) of respondents indicated that they rarely or never observed commercial bias. I found the general lack of frequently observed bias in CME remarkable, especially given the general groundswell of anti-pharma sentiment that has developed during the last several years. The breakdown of results by sex and age group was not particularly revealing, and statistically significant differences for these data (and others) were not reported (if ever assessed).

Observed Commercial Bias in Certified CME Activities

Among those who detected bias, disclosures regarding funding by industry or faculty relationships were, not surprisingly, cited as frequently or occasionally contributing to CME bias (below); however, I’m not sure what other factors would contribute to perceived bias in industry-funded CME activities. Consequently, I’m also surprised by the “rare” and “never” responses.

Source of Bias in Certified CME Activities

Yet, despite those physicians who indicated the presence of CME bias, more than 90% of all respondents indicated that CME activities were either somewhat or extremely effective, and no one indicated that these activities were “not at all” effective. Other curious findings from the survey include a strong physician preference (41%) for the meeting format—perhaps not surprising given the fact that MeetingsNet is in the business of promoting the meetings industry. A popular choice among physicians was “local meetings”; however, it is not specified if this choice refers to something like an institution’s weekly grand rounds session or an off-site industry-funded dinner meeting or both. Another not-so-surprising finding from the survey is the physician preference for the lecture format with question-and-answer sessions (a format that, of course, fits hand in glove with on-site meetings).

Among those surveyed physicians who received CME credit through online programs (only 11%), less than half provided information regarding the type of online CME in which they participated. However, among those respondents (the absolute number of which is not provided), 64% (or really 3% of all survey respondents) indicated a preference for Internet point-of-care (online self-directed) learning. The intention to use POC learning by respondents is also featured in the MeetingsNet report; 46% of physicians (I’m not sure if this is 46% of all respondents or only those 11% who participate in online CME) indicated that they plan to use the method during the next year. In any event, the manner in which the interest in POC learning is presented by MeetingsNet appears to bolster the current and perhaps future interest in POC learning among physicians. Consequently, I wonder if there’s not a reason for the seemingly pumped-up manner in which these data are presented by MeetingsNet. (In other words, is MeetingsNet also in the business of promoting Internet POC programs?)

Further survey data (including all-important absolute numbers) are likely to be obtained by shelling out several hundred dollars for the full report from MeetingsNet (which I will not be purchasing). So if there is additional, relevant information from the survey to consider, please provide them.