On the advantages and disadvantages of virtual continuing medical education: a scoping review (2024)

Data sources and article identification

A comprehensive literature search was performed on VCME in the following databases: Medline ALL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Embase, all from the OvidSP platform; ERIC from EBSCOhost, and Global Index Medicus (AIM, LILACS, IMEMR, IMSEAR, WRRIM) from the World Health Organization. There were no language restrictions. The search was limited to studies published between January 1991 to April 2021, as 1991 marks the advent of commercial Internet exchange and is not so long ago that the technology discussed in these articles is no longer relevant.²⁶ Where provided, both controlled vocabulary terms and text words were used in the subject component blocks. There were three subject blocks in the search strategies. The first subject block contained medical/surgical professionals and educators, such as physicians, surgeons, and faculty. The second subject block included continuing medical education, such as education, medical education, in-service-training, professional development, and clinical competency. The third subject block contained virtual learning, such as distance education, educational technology, virtual reality, online learning, and e-learning (see Appendix A).

Article selection and eligibility

Included publications were restricted to those focused on physicians and related to accredited/non-accredited post-certification medical education (e.g., continuing education, faculty development, maintenance of certification and/or professional development). Publications were focused on virtual education (e.g., e-learning, virtual space with avatars, video-based, app-based, SMS based) related to conferences and/or annual meetings in any virtual format. Study populations that encompass physicians with other health care professionals were included. Publications were excluded if they were intended solely for non-health professions, non-clinical health professionals, non-medical health professionals, focused on undergraduate learning or post-graduate training, focused on patient or caregiver education, involved clinical telemedicine or were conference proceedings, dissertations, or news articles.

Data abstraction

Citations for screening were managed and stored in Endnote, a citation management software, and Covidence,²⁷ an online systematic review manager and screening tool. Procedures applicable to scoping reviews for study appraisal, as outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute methods,²⁸ were followed. Three reviewers (CC, MG, BU) performed data abstraction and appraisal independently with an a priori study protocol as a guide. Title and abstract screens were conducted, and the full text of all articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by a fourth reviewer (JP). The data abstraction form was pilot tested on a random sample of four articles by CC and BU before data were extracted from the remaining articles and charted.

Data analysis

Numeric analysis was used to summarize the characteristics of included studies. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted to categorize findings.

Numeric analysis

Of articles that reported the country of origin, the predominant country was the United States (29%, n = 83), followed by Canada (11%, n = 30), Australia (6%, n = 16), the United Kingdom (3%, n = 9), and France (2%, n = 6). By continent, most VCME programs originated from North America (41%, n = 115), followed by Europe (17%, n = 47), Asia (8%, n = 24), Australia/Oceania (7%, n = 19), South America (4%, n = 12), and Africa (1%, n = 3), respectively. For the remaining VCME programs, the continent of origin was not applicable (10%, n = 29), not reported (9%, n = 25) or had a multi-continental origin (3%, n = 8). Among the 282 included articles, 155 (55%) were empirical studies, 43 (15%) were editorials/commentaries, and 30 (11%) were case studies. Of the empirical studies, 79 (51%) were pre-post studies, 38 (25%) were cross sectional surveys, 31 (20%) were randomized controlled trials, and 5 (3%) were prospective cohort studies. Among the included studies, 122 (43%) were published between 2010 to 2019, 99 (35%) were published between 2000 to 2009, 42 (15%) were published from 2020 to the present year, and 19 (7%) were published between 1991 to 1999. Nearly all included studies were published in English (93%, n = 265), followed by German (2%, n = 6), French (1%, n = 3), Portuguese (1%, n = 3), and Spanish (1%, n = 3). Less than 1% (n = 1) of articles were published in the following languages: Danish, Korean, Norwegian, Polish, and English and French.

VCME launch year was defined as the year in which the VCME activity was made available to participants. Among the included studies, 11 (4%) had VCME launch years between 1991 to 1999, 53 (19%) had VCME launch years between 2000 to 2009, 53 (19%) had VCME launch years between 2010 to 2019, and 12 (4%) had VCME launch years from 2020 to the present year.

The modality of VCME used in the included studies was mostly websites and/or discussion boards (27%, n = 77), followed by e-learning modules (20%, n = 57), videoconferences (18%, n = 50), webinars (3%, n = 7), simulations (2%, n = 6), CD-ROM (1%, n = 4), social media (1%, n = 4), SMS text messaging (1%, n = 3), applications (1%, n = 4), video games (<1%, n = 1,), and podcasts (<1%, n = 1). The remaining studies use multiple modalities (16%, n = 44), did not report the modality of VCME (6%, n = 16), or the modality of VCME was not applicable (e.g., letter to the editor broadly describing the need for virtual learning) (3%, n = 7). Refer to Appendix A for a detailed breakdown.

The majority of articles did not report the age, race, nationality nor ethnicity of participants. Of the articles that reported age (28%, n = 79), most participants were between the ages of 41 and 50 years old. In articles that specified the race of participants (4%, n = 11), White Hispanic and/or other non-White racial groups (e.g., Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino) were included. Of the included articles, seven (3%) mentioned the nationality of participants consisting of Chinese and Japanese, Dutch, Vietnamese, predominantly Italian, predominantly Chilean, predominantly non-Saudi Arabian, and multi-national. In terms of the language of VCME, the majority (39%, n = 109) of VCME programs were in English (see Table 1).

Among the included articles, 100 (35%) included discernible information regarding the gender of participants. Among these, 57 had more male than female participants, 40 had more female than male participants, and three had an equal proportion of male and female participants. No other gender identities were reported. In articles that specified the location of participants, the majority of articles included participants from semi-rural/suburban (8%, n = 23) regions followed by rural (5%, n = 15) and urban (7%, n = 19) regions. Refer to Appendix A for further details on study characteristics.

Thematic analysis

The advantages and disadvantages were analyzed thematically using an inductive approach. Five main categories of advantages were identified: convenience (n = 107); favourable learning formats (n = 92); opportunities for collaboration (n = 79); effectiveness at improving (short-term) knowledge and clinical practices of participants (n = 70); and cost-effectiveness (n = 59). Five main categories of disadvantages were also identified: technological barriers (n = 73); poor design (n = 53); cost (n = 20); lack of sufficient technological skill (n = 18); and lack of time (n = 16). Other disadvantages included privacy concerns (n = 8); lack of familiarity with VCME (n = 7); difficulty with evaluation (n = 5); country-specific differences (n = 5); learner isolation (n = 4); and the need for in-person training (n = 4).

Advantages

A majority of articles reported an advantage of VCME being convenience^29-31 (38%, n = 107), including ease of access (e.g., ability to access the program anywhere with an enabled device, regardless of geographic location),^{10,15,23,32-93} reduced travel (time, distance),^{10,15,33,34,39,53,54,58,70,82,91,94-113} and scheduling flexibility.^{32-34,39,40,44-46,49,51,52,61,63,64,69,75,81,83,88,92,94,97,98,106,113-132} This data was gathered through surveys (e.g., questionnaires, evaluation forms) (n = 57); focus groups (n = 1); interviews (n = 5); a combination of surveys, focus groups and/or interviews, (n = 6); general feedback (e.g., comments from participants) (n = 3); data analysis (e.g., using analytics to measure participation and engagement) (n = 1); or feedback from VCME organizers (n = 5).

Of the 107 studies that reported convenience as an advantage of VCME, 17 had more male than female participants, 11 had more female than male participants, and one had an equal proportion of male and female participants. The remaining 78 studies did not report the gender of participants. Of those studies that had a greater proportion of female participants (n = 11);^{31,44,49,75,79,80,93,98,115,126,133} three had female participants less than 40 years of age^31,49,79; five had female participants between the ages of 41 and 55;^{75,80,115,126,133} and two included participants over 30 years.^44,98 Archibald et al. did not report participant age.⁹³

The second most reported advantage was favourable learning formats⁹⁴ (33%, n = 92), including the qualities of being self-directed/self-paced;^{33,34,48,59,61,64,72,73,85,92,97,113,115,125,130,134-142,120,122,123,143,144} interactive;^{6,10,29,32,39,41,43-45,57,69,72,88,94,97,99,101,102,105,106,115,118,130,136,142,145-152} engaging;^{10,32,93,102,143,153} user-friendly;^{44,59-61,95,99,114,115,137,139,149,151,154-169} easy to follow/understand (e.g. rehearsed, refined presentation);^{59,60,114,137,170} well-designed;^{33,40,41,43,54,59-61,88,93,135,167,171,172} providing immediate feedback;^{76,93,147,173-175} and enabling active participation.^{56,130,174,176-180}

The next most cited advantage was opportunities for collaboration¹⁸⁰ (28%, n = 79), including greater communication and interaction with doctors from different geographic locations (e.g., international experts),^{39-41,43,47-49,55,56,58,63,65,66,69,71,75,82,85,92,96,99-101,103,105-107,109,110,112,113,118,125,128,130,131,136,140,146,149,151,159,161,165,167,176-179,181-196} allowing for greater diversity of learners and disciplines;^{8,41,43,63,65,76,84,90,95,103,105,119,123,124,144,145,159,161,165,171,176,195,197} reduced feelings of professional isolation,^{55,85,101,113,146,151,193,198} and possible benefits for physician recruitment and retention in remote areas.^55,146

Subsequent advantages were effectiveness at improving the (short-term) knowledge and clinical practices of participants ^{6-8,32-34,42-44,49,61,66,68,69,76,85,88,93,95,107,115,117,128,131,133,134,137,139,142-144,147,150,153,155,158,159,169,181,186,197,199-227} (25%, n = 70); and cost-effectiveness^{107,112,130,144,188,192,219,225} (21%, n = 59), such as low costs to implement the program,^{29,39,45,56,90,98,104,106,113,119,120,128,129,151,156,159,163,173,174,195,202,228-230} as well as reduced costs to attend with respect to travel^{10,15,29,33-35,39,44,49,50,52,53,58,70,82,83,85,100,102,103,107-109,114,116,120,122,150,162,163,195,210,231} and accommodation expenses.^{29,34,44,52,82,83,85,150,163,195}

Disadvantages

Most articles reported that a disadvantage was related to technological barriers (26%, n = 73), including structural barriers (e.g., limited bandwidth, poor audio quality);^{29,31,36,44-46,50,56,58-60,62,69,70,76,82-86,88,91,95,100,108,112,115,118,126,130,143,147,150,153,155,157,161,174,178,180,181,185,187,193,195,208,224,228,230-247} lack of functioning and availability of equipment (e.g., computer, device); ^{45,70,72,115,123,174,233,237} software problems (e.g., system crashes);^{75,117,197,248} and lack of access (e.g., no Twitter²⁴⁹). Of these articles, seven had participants from low-income countries;^{44,56,82,118,178,245,247} 10 studies had participants from lower-middle income countries;^{31,44,82,85,115,118,143,155,239,242} six studies had participants from upper-middle income countries;^{31,44,112,117,118,243} and 22 studies had participants from high-income countries, of which nine had participants from rural areas of high-income countries.^{36,58,70,126,193,228,244,246,250} Of the remaining articles, two mentioned participants from over 50 different countries and 32 did not report the location of participants. Overall, the majority of those who reported technological barriers were located in Global South countries.

The second most reported disadvantage was poor design (19%, n = 53), including lack of interaction (between learner and facilitator or between learners);^{34,51,59,67,70,77,79,84,88,90,104,112,123,135,142,168,208,216,224,239,243,251-256} lack of active participation;^{33,125,159,232,237,257,258} logistical issues (e.g., microphone and camera placement, unmuted microphones)^{36,58,59,110,174,232,236,259} and technology-related logistical issues (e.g., site blocked by institution);^{31,33,59,60,108,117,149,177,187,202,228,259} not user-friendly;^{34,59,66,149,208,248,251} poor delivery format;^193,216,260 and lack of coordination (e.g., with audio visual department).²³²

The next most reported disadvantage was related to cost^{40,46,70,97,105,112,116,118,130,146,155,178,180,183,184,194,198,228,231,240,261} (7%, n = 21), of which n = 12 articles mentioned high costs to develop, implement, and/or sustain the VCME program,^{40,70,97,105,112,130,178,180,184,194,198,228} with participants located in rural areas of high-income countries,^{40,70,184,198,228} low-income countries,^178,194 and less developed areas of upper-middle-income countries.¹¹² The other nine articles mentioned high costs to participate (e.g., monthly subscription cost),^{46,116,118,146,155,183,231,240,261} with participants mostly located in lower-middle income countries.^{118,146,155,231,261} Lack of funding and support was reported by participants located in rural U.S.,¹⁸⁴ less developed provinces in China,¹¹² and developing countries.¹⁹⁴ An article by Geissbuhler et al. mentioned a lack of international support for reducing costs associated with satellite connectivity in Mali.¹⁴⁶

Other reported disadvantages were lack of sufficient technological (e.g., computer, Internet) skill^{34,45,51,59,60,70,72,73,106,125,148,150,155,178,208,243,261,262} (6%, n = 18) and lack of time^{59,60,70,72,75,118,125,150,155,161,193,208,224,240,257,261,263} (6%, n = 16). In one of these studies in which there were more female than male general practitioners, many participants reported being able to access VCME from home but finding it difficult to find time while balancing family responsibilities.⁷⁵ Moreover, in the study by Curran et al.,⁵⁹ the majority of those who did not use the web-based aspect were mostly female and reported that personal commitments were a time-limiting factor that made accessing the web-based VCME challenging. Similar findings were reported by and Curran et al.⁶⁰ where personal activities left little time to participate in VCME. The remaining studies did not provide discernible information regarding the gender of participants or further details regarding physicians’ reasons for reporting lack of time as a barrier.

Several articles also mentioned disadvantages associated with privacy concerns (e.g., online payment, Internet security)^{34,48,72,105,114,149,190,249} (3%, n = 8); lack of familiarity with VCME (e.g., more experience and success with traditional CME)^{36,57,106,135,264} (2%, n = 7), including educators’ lack of familiarity;^123,244 difficulty with participant evaluation (e.g., lack of integrity in completing VCME)^{44,74,114,159,248} (2%, n = 5); country-specific differences (2%, n = 5) (e.g., misunderstanding of lab results, differences in treatment, language barriers)^{43,69,154,237,241}; learner isolation (n = 4, 1%) (e.g., impersonal interactions);^{130,132,195,253} and the need for in-person training.^45,51,98,265

Structural barriers

This scoping review has highlighted the importance of VCME as a tool. However, the widespread delivery is still restricted by structural barriers, including limited bandwidth and slow Internet connectivity. A large proportion of participants who reported these barriers were located in low and lower-middle income countries, which may be associated with a lack of funding, and unaffordable, often higher costs of Internet connectivity, compared to high income countries.^146,231,233 Likewise, a significant proportion of participants located in high-income countries, notably those in rural areas, face similar technological difficulties.²³¹ The limited provision of reliable high-speed Internet in high-income countries may also be attributed to some degree to a lack of financial support. For example, although Canada is considered a high-income country, with $6 billion in funding in 2019 to provide Canadians with reliable high-speed Internet,²⁶⁶ there are still areas that are satellite dependent, communities without fibre transport technologies, and areas where less than one quarter of households have access to broadband services of 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload speeds or greater.²⁶⁷ Furthermore, although 87.4% of households in Canada have access to broadband speeds of at least 50/10 Mbps, only 45.6% of households in rural communities have access to these services.²⁶⁷ These statistics indicate that physicians located in rural areas may have different technology requirements compared to their urban counterparts. Thus, without an emphasis on the need for funding to support VCME projects in low/lower-middle income countries and rural regions of high-income countries, physicians in these areas may be left behind while the field of VCME advances, therefore further widening the technological and social gap that exists between and within countries.

Duality of VCME

VCME is perceived to save time, minimize costs, and eliminate travel, therefore increasing the accessibility of CME to marginalized groups, including women and physicians with young children.^{102,126,240,270} However, travelling away from home to attend in-person conferences and CME programs may have been an opportunity for physicians to take protected time off from domestic responsibilities.^59,60,75,271 Prior to the pandemic, female physicians were already devoting more hours to household and child-care duties than their male counterparts.^272,273 Along with the pandemic and consequent increase in VCME that can be accessed from home, this disparity has likely intensified, negatively impacting the ability of female physicians to balance their work and personal lives. There is also a common assumption that female physicians will make sacrifices in their professional lives to accommodate their home and family care responsibilities.²⁷¹ With CME programs being delivered virtually and allowing physicians to access them from home, the expectation for female physicians to make time for domestic responsibilities amidst their work life may be further exacerbated. As a result, VCME may be reinforcing gender stereotypes and undermining the career development of female physicians in the process of attempting to address a need. This unintended consequence is a crucial aspect of VCME that CME providers must take into account.

Cost of VCME

A prominent advantage of VCME is its cost-effective nature due to the elimination of travel¹¹⁶ and accommodation expenses, therefore improving the accessibility of CME to a wider physician audience.^64,82,274 It has also shown to be cost-effective when built upon existing platforms and resources^120,228 and may even offset the initial costs of investment over time as these virtual modalities are used more frequently. However, a reduction in the cost of participation may have important implications, such as a greater reliance on commercial sponsors, a decrease in the perceived value and worth of presenters’ expertise, and a reduction in participants’ commitment to the VCME program. Since registration fees are often needed to support the host platform and provide remuneration to speakers, providing CME courses free-of-charge may require greater financial support from commercial organizations, which can lead to biased practice-transforming information and techniques,²⁷⁵ as well as greater scepticism among participants regarding the credibility of the information provided virtually.^227,257 Additionally, with VCME being perceived as less financially demanding, organizers may decide to divert funds away from VCME and re-allocate it towards other educational activities.⁸² Consequently, there may be a reduction in the quantity of presenters that can be invited to speak at VCME events, as well as a decrease in the perceived value and worth of presenters’ expertise,²⁵⁶ which can further decrease participants’ motivation to participate and complete the CME course.¹⁶⁶

Future of VCME

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a significant increase in the number and frequency of VCME activities.²⁷⁶ Not only has VCME allowed specialty medical training to endure during the pandemic, but it has also served as a means of communicating up-to-date information on COVID-19, as well as providing peer support and reducing feelings of isolation among medical professionals.²⁷⁷ It has also led to record attendance numbers in participants and experts that were not previously possible with in-person conferences.¹⁷⁹ Although most VCME activities were focused on general/family practitioners, VCME focused on specialties such as oncology, sports medicine, and plastic surgery have also been positively received,^77,174,236 suggesting that the benefits of VCME may not be limited by medical specialty. Although we did not detect meaningful differences in gender regarding the convenience of VCME, it should be noted that only fewer than one-third of articles that mentioned convenience as an advantage of CME reported on participants’ gender. Thus, more data is needed in order to determine whether there are differences in VCME access based on participant gender.

In the post-pandemic phase, VCME may continue to be a highly demanded modality for CME delivery, particularly in Global South countries, with a recent online survey showing that physicians located in sub-Saharan Africa were more receptive to the transition to VCME compared to those from North America.²³¹ VCME may reduce cost and travel distance for physicians located in these regions, the latter of which is particularly pronounced in low-income countries as most CME events tend to occur in North America. This finding may provide another reason to retain VCME in the post-pandemic era, especially for those located in low-income countries. However, as most VCME interventions are created by Global North countries, an emphasis must be placed on addressing the specific needs of those located in the Global South to ensure equitable access among all participants.

Study limitations

Our scoping review has several limitations. First, our searches were limited to physicians, as the inclusion of all health professionals generated an unfeasible number of records. Second, we excluded conference proceedings, dissertations, and news articles, given their less detailed and low information yield. As breadth of evidence is the focus of this scoping review, methodological quality and critical appraisal of the included studies was not assessed.

2. American Medical Association . The AMA physician’s recognition award and credit system. [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.ama-assn.org/media/7831/download. [Accessed Aug 17, 2020].

3. Praharaj SK, Ameen S. The relevance of continuing medical education. Indian J Psychol Med. 2020;42(5 Suppl):97S-102S. 10.1177/0253717620957524 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Canchihuaman FA, Garcia PJ, Gloyd SS, Holmes KK. An interactive internet-based continuing education course on sexually transmitted diseases for physicians and midwives in Peru. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19318. 10.1371/journal.pone.0019318 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Bonawitz R, Bird L, Le NB, et al.. Implementing the mobile continuing medical education (mCME) project in Vietnam: making it work and sharing lessons learned. Mhealth. 2019;5:7. 10.21037/mhealth.2019.02.01 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Casebeer L, Engler S, Bennett N, et al.. A controlled trial of the effectiveness of internet continuing medical education. BMC Med. 2008;6:37. 10.1186/1741-7015-6-37 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Wall T, et al.. Multicomponent Internet continuing medical education to promote chlamydia screening. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(3):285-90. 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.12.013 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Harris SB, Leiter LA, Webster-Bogaert S, Van DM, O'Neill C. Teleconferenced educational detailing: Diabetes education for primary care physicians. J Continu Educ Health Prof. 2005. Spring;25(2):87-97. 10.1002/chp.13 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Salinas GD. CME effectiveness: utilizing outcomes assessments of 600+ CME programs to evaluate the association between format and effectiveness. J Contin Educ Health Prof. Spring 2015;35Suppl 1:S38-9. 10.1002/chp.21279 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Fordis M, King JE, Ballantyne CM, et al.. Comparison of the instructional efficacy of Internet-based CME with live interactive CME workshops: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294(9):1043-1051. 10.1001/jama.294.9.1043 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Pelayo M, Cebrián D, Areosa A, Agra Y, Izquierdo JV, Buendía F. Effects of online palliative care training on knowledge, attitude and satisfaction of primary care physicians. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12(1):37. 10.1186/1471-2296-12-37 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Cook DA, Price DW, Wittich CM, West CP, Blachman MJ. Factors influencing physicians' selection of continuous professional development activities: a cross-specialty national survey. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2017. Summer;37(3):154-160. 10.1097/ceh.0000000000000163 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. O’Brien Pott M, Blanshan AS, Huneke KM, Baasch Thomas BL, Cook DA. Barriers to identifying and obtaining CME: a national survey of physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):168. 10.1186/s12909-021-02595-x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Jeong D, Presseau J, ElChamaa R, et al.. Barriers and facilitators to self-directed learning in continuing professional development for physicians in Canada: a scoping review. Acad Med. 2018;93(8):1245-1254. 10.1097/acm.0000000000002237 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Stancic N, Mullen PD, Prokhorov AV, Frankowski RF, McAlister AL. Continuing medical education: what delivery format do physicians prefer? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003. Summer;23(3):162-7. 10.1002/chp.1340230307 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Curran VR, Keegan D, Parsons W, et al.. A comparative analysis of the perceived continuing medical education needs of a cohort of rural and urban Canadian family physicians. Can J Rural Med. 2007. Summer;12(3):161-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Schoen MJ, Tipton EF, Houston TK, et al.. Characteristics that predict physician participation in a Web-based CME activity: the MI-Plus study. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009. Fall;29(4):246-53. 10.1002/chp.20043 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Casebeer L, Bennett N, Kristofco R, Carillo A, Centor R. Physician Internet medical information seeking and on-line continuing education use patterns. J Contin Educ Health Prof. Winter2002;22(1):33-42. 10.1002/chp.1340220105 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Harris Jr JM, Novalis-Marine C, Harris RB. Women physicians are early adopters of on-line continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003;23(4):221-228. 10.1002/chp.1340230505 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Tretter JT, Windram J, Faulkner T, et al.. Heart University: a new online educational forum in paediatric and adult congenital cardiac care. The future of virtual learning in a post-pandemic world?Cardiol Young. 2020;30(4):560-567. 10.1017/S1047951120000852 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Bhargava S, Farabi B, Rathod D, Singh AK. The fate of major dermatology conferences and meetings of 2020: are e-conferences and digital learning the future? Clin Exp Dermatol. 2020;45(6):759-761. 10.1111/ced.14272 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General . OIG Review of NFSNET. Report. 1993:35. [Google Scholar]

27. Veritas Health Innovation . Covidence systematic review software [Internet] 2014. Available from https://www.covidence.org [Accessed Jun 24, 2020].

28. Moola S, Munn Z, Sears K, et al.. Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute's approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015. Sep;13(3):163-9. 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000064 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Richardson ML, Norris TE. On-line delivery of continuing medical education over the World-Wide Web: an on-line needs assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(5):1161-4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Sly JL, Lombardi E, Kusel M, Sly PD. Piloting a web-based continuing professional development program for asthma education. Int J Med Inform. 2006;75(10-11):708-13. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.09.004 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Vides-Porras A, Cáceres P, Company A, et al.. Gaining insight into the implementation of an e-learning smoking cessation course in Latin American countries. Health Promot Int. 2021;36(2):349-362. 10.1093/heapro/daaa054 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Farokhi MR, Zarifsanaiey N, Haghighi F, Mehrabi M. E-learning or in-person approaches in continuous medical education: A comparative study. IIOAB J. 2016;7(2):472-476. [Google Scholar]

33. Curran VR, Hoekman T, Gulliver W, Landells I, Hatcher L. Web-based continuing medical education. (II): Evaluation study of computer-mediated continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2000;20(2):106-19. 10.1002/chp.1340200207 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Gandsas A, McIntire K. Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies: new solutions to old problems. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2002;11(2):35-6. 10.1080/136457002753632420 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Greenberg JA, Schwarz E, Paige J, Dort J, Bachman S. At-home hands-on surgical training during COVID19: proof of concept using a virtual telementoring platform. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(5):1963-1969. 10.1007/s00464-021-08470-6 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Klein D, Davis P, Hickey L. Videoconferences for rural physicians' continuing health education. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11Suppl 1:97-9. 10.1258/1357633054461822 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Krupinski EA, Lopez AM, Lyman T, Barker G, Weinstein RS. Continuing education via telemedicine: analysis of reasons for attending or not attending. Telemed J E Health. 2004;10(3):403-9. 10.1089/tmj.2004.10.403 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Kulatunga GGAK, Marasinghe RB, Karunathilake IM, Dissanayake VHW. Development and implementation of a web-based continuing professional development (CPD) programme on medical genetics. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19(7):388-92. 10.1177/1357633X13506525 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Lamba P. Teleconferencing in medical education: a useful tool. Australas Med J. 2011;4(8):442-7. 10.4066/AMJ.2011.823 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Liaw S-T, Pearce C, Keppell M. Developing a web-based learning network for continuing medical education. J Workplace Learn. 2002;14(3):98-108. 10.1108/13665620210421911 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Malassagne B, Mutter D, Leroy J, Smith M, Soler L, Marescaux J. Teleeducation in surgery: European Institute for Telesurgery experience. World J Surg. 2001;25(11):1490-4. 10.1007/s00268-001-0135-z [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. McEnery KW, Roth SM, Walkup RV. Radiology CME on the Web using secure document transfer and internationally distributed image servers. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996:37-40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Medina-Presentado JC, Margolis A, Teixeira L, et al.. Online continuing interprofessional education on hospital-acquired infections for Latin America. Braz J Infect Dis. 2017;21(2):140-147. 10.1016/j.bjid.2016.11.003 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Abawi K, Gertiser L, Idris R, et al.. A large-scale Internet/computer-based, training module: dissemination of evidence-based management of postpartum hemorrhage to front-line health care workers. IJEL. 2017;16(4)317-328. [Google Scholar]

45. Bollinger RC, McKenzie-White J, Gupta A. Building a global health education network for clinical care and research. The benefits and challenges of distance learning tools. Lessons learned from the Hopkins Center for Clinical Global Health Education. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011;25(2):385-98. 10.1016/j.idc.2011.02.006 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

46. Murphy K, Munk PL. Continuing medical education: MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) and their implications for radiology learning. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2013;64(3):165. 10.1016/j.carj.2013.06.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Norman JN, Alsajir MB. Tele-education-Postgraduate education. Med Principles Pract. 2001;10(3):115-122. 10.1159/000050354 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Peterson MW, Galvin JR, Dayton C, D'Alessandro MP. Realizing the promise: delivering pulmonary continuing medical education over the Internet. Che st. 1999;115(5):1429-36. 10.1378/chest.115.5.1429 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Rana R, Kumawat D, Sahay P, et al.. Perception among ophthalmologists about webinars as a method of continued medical education during COVID-19 pandemic. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69(4). 10.4103/ijo.IJO_3136_20 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Regueiro MD, Greer JB, Binion DG, et al.. The inflammatory bowel disease live interinstitutional and interdisciplinary videoconference education (IBD LIVE) series. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(10):1687-1695. 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000187 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Ruf D, Kriston L, Berner M, Harter M. General practitioners and online continuing medical education-which factors influence its use? Ger Med Sci. 2009;7:Doc08. 10.3205/000067 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

52. Taekman JM, Kingsley CP, Shelley KH. Medical education over the Internet. Acad Med. 1996;71(5):525. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Tello R, Davison BD, Blickman JG. The virtual course: delivery of live and recorded continuing medical education material over the Internet. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(6):1519-21. 10.2214/ajr.174.6.1741519 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

54. Whitten P, Ford DJ, Davis N, Speicher R, Collins B. Comparison of face-to-face versus interactive video continuing medical education delivery modalities. J Continu Ed Health Prof. 1998;18(2):93-99. 10.1002/chp.1340180205 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

55. Bagayoko CO, Perrin C, Gagnon M-P, Geissbuhler A. Continuing distance education: a capacity-building tool for the de-isolation of care professionals and researchers.J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28Suppl 3:S666-70. 10.1007/s11606-013-2522-1 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

56. Boatin A, Ngonzi J, Bradford L, Wylie B, Goodman A. Teaching by teleconference: a model for distance medical education across two continents. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;5(13):754-761. 10.4236/ojog.2015.513106 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Butterworth K, Hayes B, Zimmerman M, Knoble S. Needs assessment for continuing medical education in Nepal. Med Teach. 2009;31(5):463. 10.1080/01421590903051315 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Callas PW, Ricci MA, Caputo MP. Improved rural provider access to continuing medical education through interactive videoconferencing. Telemed J E Health. 2000;6(4):393-9. 10.1089/15305620050503861 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

59. Curran V, Kirby F, Allen M, Sargeant J. A mixed learning technology approach for continuing medical education. Med Educ Online. 2003;8(1):4341. 10.3402/meo.v8i.4341 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Curran V, Kirby F, Allen M, Sargeant J. A mixed learning technology strategy for providing continuing medical education to rural physicians. J Telemed Telecare. 2003;9(5):305-7. 10.1258/135763303769211364 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Curran V, Lockyer J, Sargeant J, Fleet L. Evaluation of learning outcomes in Web-based continuing medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81(10 Suppl):S30-4. 10.1097/01.ACM.0000236509.32699.f5 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Curran VR, Fleet L, Kirby F. Factors influencing rural health care professionals' access to continuing professional education. Aust J Rural. 2006;14(2):51-5. 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2006.00763.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Datta C. The rise of e-learning and opportunities for Indian family physicians. J Family Med Prim Care. 2012;1(1):7-9. 10.4103/2249-4863.94441 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. de Carvalho Mesquita K, da Silva JA, Igreja ACdSM. Aplicabilidade da educação a distância na educação médica continuada. Brasília Med. 2012;49(2):111-117. [Google Scholar]

65. DeLacy FB, Nehme J, Lacy AM, Chand M. Educational technology: revolutionizing surgical education. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2017;78(8):426-427. 10.12968/hmed.2017.78.8.426 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

66. Dinh M, Tan T, Bein K, Hayman J, Wong YK, Dinh D. Emergency department knowledge management in the age of Web 2.0: evaluation of a new concept. Emerg Med Australas. 2011;23(1):46-53. 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2010.01373.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

67. Dufour JC, Cuggia M, Soula G, Spector M, Kohler F. An integrated approach to distance learning with digital video in the French-speaking Virtual Medical University. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(5-6):369-376. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.01.011 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

68. Fordis M, King JE, Ballantyne CM, et al.. Comparison of the instructional efficacy of Internet-based CME with live interactive CME workshops: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294(9):1043-51. 10.1001/jama.294.9.1043 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

69. Hoedebecke K, Mahmoud M, Yakubu K, et al.. Collaborative global health e-learning: a massive open online course experience of young family doctors. J Family Med Prim Care. 2018;7(5):884-887. 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_186_18 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

70. Janes R, Arroll B, Buetow S, Coster G, McCormick R, Hague I. Rural New Zealand health professionals' perceived barriers to greater use of the internet for learning. Rural Remote Health. 2005;5(4):436. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. Kanneganti A, Lim KMX, Chan GMF, et al.. Pedagogy in a pandemic-COVID-19 and virtual continuing medical education (vCME) in obstetrics and gynecology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(6):692-695. 10.1111/aogs.13885 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

72. Lupiáñez-Villanueva F, Mayer MA, Torrent J. Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 within the health care systems: an empirical exploration. Inform Health Soc Care. Sep2009;34(3):117-26. 10.1080/17538150903102265 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

73. Mamary E, Charles P. Promoting self-directed learning for continuing medical education. Medical Teach. 2003;25(2):188-90. 10.1080/0142159031000092607 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

74. Masud S, Ayub A, Mahboob U. Use of massive online open courses as a potential resource to provide continuing medical education in Pakistan. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2016;26(2):160-1. 02.2016/JCPSP.160161 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Bermejo-Caja CJ, Koatz D, Orrego C, et al.. Acceptability and feasibility of a virtual community of practice to primary care professionals regarding patient empowerment: a qualitative pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):403. 10.1186/s12913-019-4185-z [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

76. Mohan D, Fischhoff B, Angus DC, et al.. Serious games may improve physician heuristics in trauma triage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(37):9204-9209. 10.1073/pnas.1805450115 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

77. Nahai F. Distance learning in plastic surgery: are live meetings destined for the scrapheap? Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32(5):659-60. 10.1177/1090820X12448817 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

78. Neto RM. Distance education in medical ultrasound in Brazil. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;9(2):197-202. 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1406 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

79. Newman TH, Robb H, Michaels J, et al.. The end of conferences as we know them? Trainee perspectives from the Virtual ACCESS Conference 2020. BJU Int. 2021;127(2):263-265. 10.1111/bju.15330 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

80. Nofal MR, Halim N, Le BN, et al.. Unpacking the “Black Box”: How an SMS-Based Continuing Medical Education Intervention Improved Medical Knowledge Among HIV Clinicians in Vietnam. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2018;6(4):668-679. 10.9745/GHSP-D-18-00298 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

81. O’Brien Pott M, Blanshan AS, Huneke KM, Baasch Thomas BL, Cook DA. What influences choice of continuing medical education modalities and providers? A National Survey of US physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Acad Med. 2020;96(1):93-100. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003758 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

82. Ottesen TD, Montoya RL, Ogunleye TD, et al.. Implementation and impact evaluation of a virtual orthopaedic continuing medical education conference in a low-resource country. J Surg Educ. 2021; 78(5):1629-1636. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.01.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

83. Penna GCe, Mendes HG, Dias MAdS, et al.. Avaliação do emprego de videoconferências para a capacitação à distância dos médicos das equipes de saúde da família dentro do projeto nacional telessaúde. Evaluation of the use of videoconferencing for distance training of doctors in the family health teams within the national telehealth project. Rev Med Minas Gerais. 2015;25(1):108-14 [Google Scholar]

84. Prinz JC, Hartmann D, Wolff H, et al.. Dermatology continuing medical education during Corona times and beyond: Experience from the 2020 digital advanced training week for practical dermatology and venerology and lessons for future concepts. Hautarzt. 2021;72(4):362-366. 10.1007/s00105-020-04755-4 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

85. Ramanathan R, Aldis R, Gupta S, Desai M, Bollinger Jr RC, Reed VA. Mixed methods evaluation of an international internet-based continuing medical education course for pediatric HIV providers in Pune, India. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2011;24(1):540. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

86. Ramsay R, Nashat NH, Thuraisingham C, et al.. Reimagining medical education for primary care in the time of COVID-19: a world view. Educ Prim Care. 2021;32(1):2-5. 10.1080/14739879.2020.1851147 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

87. Rebbeck T, Macedo L, Paul P, Trevena L, Cameron ID. General practitioners' knowledge of whiplash guidelines improved with online education. Aust Health Rev. 2013;37(5):688-94. 10.1071/AH13057 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

88. Ruiz-Barrera MA, Agudelo-Arrieta M, Aponte-Caballero R, et al.. Developing a Web-Based Congress: The 2020 International Web-Based Neurosurgery Congress Method. World Neurosurg. 2021;148:e415-e424. 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.12.174 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

89. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, et al.. Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators a systematic review. BJU International. 2013;111(2):194-205. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11270.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

90. Tarchichi TR, Szymusiak J. Continuing medical education in the time of social distancing: the case for expanding podcast usage for continuing education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2021;41(1):70-74. 10.1097/ceh.0000000000000324 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

91. Willman AS. Use of Web 2.0 tools and social media for continuous professional development among primary healthcare practitioners within the Defence Primary Healthcare: a qualitative review. BMJ Mil Health. 2020;166(4):232-235. 10.1136/jramc-2018-001098 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

92. Zereshkian A, Wong R, Leifer R, et al.. Continuing professional development needs amongst University of Toronto's Department of Radiation Oncology Faculty. J Cancer Educ. 2021;36(1):118-125. 10.1007/s13187-019-01607-1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

93. Archibald D, Burns JK, Fitzgerald M, Merkley VF. Aligning practice data and institution-specific CPD: medical quality management as the driver for an eLearning development process. J Eur CME. 2020;9(1):1754120. 10.1080/21614083.2020.1754120 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

94. Vollmar HC, Schurer-Maly CC, Lelgemann M, Koneczny N, Koch M, Butzlaff M. Online continuing medical education based on national disease management guidelines. The e-learning platform leitnien-wissen.de. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz. 2006;49(5):412-417. 10.1007/s00103-006-1251-6 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

95. Adler G, Pritchett LR, Kauth MR. Meeting the continuing education needs of rural mental health providers. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(11):852-6. 10.1089/tmj.2013.0010 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

96. Allen M, Sargeant J, MacDougall E, Proctor-Simms M. Videoconferencing for continuing medical education: from pilot project to sustained programme. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(3):131-7. 10.1177/1357633X0200800302 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

97. Chao J. Continuing medical education software: a comparative review. J Fam Pract. 1992;34(5):598-604. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

98. Chatziralli I, Ventura CV, Touhami S, et al.. Transforming ophthalmic education into virtual learning during COVID-19 pandemic: a global perspective. Eye (Lon). 2021;35(5):1459-1466. 10.1038/s41433-020-1080-0 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

99. Cho MJ, Hong JP. The emergence of virtual education during the COVID-19 pandemic: The past, present, and future of the plastic surgery education. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(6):1413-1421. 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.12.099 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

100. Ghanem O, Logghe HJ, Tran BV, Huynh D, Jacob B. Closed Facebook TM groups and CME credit: a new format for continuing medical education. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(2):587-591. 10.1007/s00464-018-6376-9 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

101. Greenwood J, Williams R. Continuing professional development for Australian rural psychiatrists by videoconference. Australas Psychiatry. 2008;16(4):273-6. 10.1080/10398560801982994 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

102. Kisilevsky E, Margolin E, Kohly RP. Access, an unintended consequence of virtual continuing medical education during COVID-19: a department's experience at the University of Toronto. Can J Ophthalmol. 2021;56(1):e18-e19. 10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.10.002 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

103. Knipfer C, Wagner F, Knipfer K, et al.. Learners' acceptance of a webinar for continuing medical education. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48(6):841-846. 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.11.010 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

104. Levy BT, Albrecht L, Gjerde CL. Using videoconferencing to train community family medicine preceptors. Acad Med. 1998;73(5):616-7. 10.1097/00001888-199805000-00094 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

105. Lewis CE, Relan A, Hines OJ, Tillou A, Hiatt JR. Morbidity and mortality as a televideoconference: A randomized prospective evaluation of learning and perceptions. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212(3):400-405. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.12.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

106. Lott DR. Can Distance Education Solve Rural Physicians' Professional Isolation Problems? J Contin High Educ. 1996; 44(3)25-28. 10.1080/07377366.1996.10400300 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

107. Lynch J, Weaver L, Hall P, et al.. Using telehealth technology to support CME in end-of-life care for community physicians in Ontario. Telemed J E Health. 2004;10(1):103-7. 10.1089/153056204773644643 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

108. Michelson G, Scibor M, Keppler K, Dick B, Kuchenbecker J. Online medical education in ophthalmology. Ophthalmologe. 2000;97(4):290-294. 10.1007/s003470050530 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

109. Omil-Lima D, Fernstrum A, Gupta K, et al.. Urologic education in the era of COVID-19: results from a webinar-based reconstructive urology lecture series. Urology. 2021;152:2-8. 10.1016/j.urology.2021.03.004 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

110. Sen Gupta TK, Wallace DA, Clark SL, Bannan G. Videoconferencing: practical advice on implementation. Aus J Rural Health. 1998;6(1):2-4. 10.1111/j.1440-1584.1998.tb00273.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

111. Walsh K. E-learning in medical education: the potential environmental impact. Educ Prim Care. 2018;29(2):104-106. 10.1080/14739879.2017.1389619 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

112. Wang Z-Y, Zhang L-J, Liu Y-H, Jiang W-X, Tang S-L, Liu X-Y. Process evaluation of E-learning in continuing medical education: evidence from the China-Gates Foundation Tuberculosis Control Program. Infectious Dis Poverty. 2021;10(1):23. 10.1186/s40249-021-00810-x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

113. White LE, Krousel-Wood MA, Mather F. Technology meets healthcare: Distance learning and telehealth. Ochsner J. 2001;3(1):22-29. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

114. Allen JW. Surgical Internet at a glance: continuing medical education. Am J Surg. 2001;181(2):89-90. 10.1016/s0002-9610(00)00570-5 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

115. Chen T-H, Buenconsejo-Lum LE, Braun KL, Higa C, Maskarinec GG. A pilot evaluation of distance education modalities for health workers in the U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands. Pac Health Dialog. 2007;14(1):22-30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

116. Davis P, McCracken P. Restructuring rural continuing medical education through videoconferencing. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8Suppl 2:108-9. 10.1177/1357633X020080S249 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

117. Diehl LA, Souza RM, Gordan PA, Esteves RZ, Coelho IC. InsuOnline, an electronic game for medical education on insulin therapy: a randomized controlled trial with primary care physicians. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(3):e72. 10.2196/jmir.6944 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

118. Feldacker C, Jacob S, Chung MH, Nartker A, Kim HN. Experiences and perceptions of online continuing professional development among clinicians in sub-Saharan Africa. Hum Resour Health. 2017;15(1):89. 10.1186/s12960-017-0266-4 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

119. Gupta MP, Sridhar J, Wykoff CC, Yonekawa Y. Ophthalmology conferences in the coronavirus disease 2019 era. Curr Opin Opthalmol. 2020;31(5):396-402. 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000688 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

120. Hemmati N, Omrani S, Hemmati N. A comparison of Internet-based learning and traditional classroom lecture to learn CPR for continuing medical education. Turk Online J Dist Educ. 2013;14(1):256-265. [Google Scholar]

121. Jarvis-Selinger S, Gullion J, Lauscher HN, Ho K. Integrating continuing professional development and graduate curriculum in a case-based interprofessional online course: telemedicine in action. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2007;27(4):253-4. 10.1002/chp.145 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

122. Krebs TL, Berg WA, Roys SR, Ratakonda S, Pomerantz SM, Siegel EL. MammoWeb continuing medical education (CME): a web-based breast imaging CME program. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12(2 Suppl 1):124-6. 10.1007/BF03168777 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

123. Kresevic D, Burant C, Denton J, Heath B, Kypriotakis G. The use of multimodal strategies for distance education in the GRECCs. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2011;32(1):54-79. 10.1080/02701960.2011.550216 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

124. Leite MTM, Carlini AL, Ramos MP, Sigulem D. Educação médica continuada online: potencial e desafios no cenário brasileiro. Online continuing medical education: potential and challenges in the Brazilian context. Rev Bras Educ Méd. 2010/03 2010;34(1):141-149. 10.1590/S0100-55022010000100017 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

125. Lockyer J, Sargeant J, Curran V, Fleet L. The transition from face-to-face to online CME facilitation. Med Teach. 2006;28(7):625-30. 10.1080/01421590600922909 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

126. MacWalter G, McKay J, Bowie P. Utilisation of internet resources for continuing professional development: a cross-sectional survey of general practitioners in Scotland. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:24. 10.1186/s12909-016-0540-5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

127. Mazzoleni MC, Maugeri C, Rognoni C, Cantoni A, Imbriani M. Is it worth investing in online continuous education for healthcare staff? Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;180:939-43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

128. Nelsen BR, Chen YK, Lasic M, Bader AM, Arriaga AF. Advances in anesthesia education: increasing access and collaboration in medical education, from E-learning to telesimulation. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2020;33(6):800-807. 10.1097/aco.0000000000000931 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

129. Tucker AP, Miller A, Sweeney D, Jones RW. Continuing medical education: A needs analysis of anaesthetists. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006;34(6):765-769. 10.1177/0310057X0603400604 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

130. Tullo E, Newton J, Clapp A. What can e-learning offer geriatric medicine in the UK? Rev Clin Gerontol. 2012;22(3):235-242. 10.1017/S0959259812000081 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

131. Wiecha J, Barrie N. Collaborative online learning: a new approach to distance CME. Acad Med. 2002;77(9):928-9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

132. Yee M, Simpson-Young V, Paton R, Zuo Y. How do GPs want to learn in the digital era? Aust Fam Physician. 2014;43(6):399-402. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

133. Mazzoleni MC, Rognoni C, Finozzi E, et al.. Usage and effectiveness of e-learning courses for continuous medical education. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;150:921-5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

134. Comer A, Harris AD, Shardell M, et al.. Attaining safety for patients through interdisciplinary risk reduction efforts (ASPIRRE) subgroup. Web-based training improves knowledge about central line bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(12):1219-22. 10.1086/662585 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

135. Humphreys H, McHugh S, Dimitrov BD, Cowman S, Tierney S, Hill AD. Web-based training to improve knowledge and change practice in preventing healthcare infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(6):644-5. 10.1086/665717 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

136. Curran V, Kirby F, Parsons E, Lockyer J. Short report: satisfaction with on-line CME. Evaluation of the ruralMDcme website. Can Fam Physician. 2004;50:271-4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

137. Della Corte F, La Mura F, Petrino R. E-learning as educational tool in emergency and disaster medicine teaching. Minerva Anestesiol. 2005;71(5):181-95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

138. Le TT, Rait MA, Jarlsberg LG, Eid NS, Cabana MD. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a distance asthma learning program for pediatricians. J Asthma. 2010;47(3):245-50. 10.3109/02770900903560209 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

139. Mehta N, Geissel K, Rhodes E, Salinas G. Comparative effectiveness in CME: evaluation of personalized and self-directed learning models. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015;35Suppl 1:S24-6. 10.1002/chp.21284 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

140. Oliveira AC, Mattos S, Coimbra M. Development and assessment of an e-learning course on pediatric cardiology basics. JMIR Med Educ. 2017;3(1):e10. 10.2196/mededu.5434 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

141. Raggio V, Roche L, Esperón P, Stoll M. Curso on-line: Introducción a la medicina genómica. On-line Course: Introduction to genomic medicine. Rev Méd Urug. 2007;23(2):116-121. [Google Scholar]

142. Sargeant J, Curran V, Jarvis-Selinger S, et al.. Interactive on-line continuing medical education: physicians' perceptions and experiences. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24(4):227-36. 10.1002/chp.1340240406. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

143. Stancic N, Mullen PD, Prokhorov AV, Frankowski RF, McAlister AL. Continuing medical education: what delivery format do physicians prefer? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003;23(3):162-7. 10.1002/chp.1340230307 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

144. Gill CJ, Le NB, Halim N, et al.. mCME project V.2.0: randomised controlled trial of a revised SMS-based continuing medical education intervention among HIV clinicians in Vietnam. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(1):e632. 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000632 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

145. Krishnamachari B, Rehman M, Cohn JE, et al.. Video education on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) for physicians: an interventional Study. J Cancer Educ. 2018;33(6):1213-1221. 10.1007/s13187-017-1233-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

146. Chen HS, Guo FR, Chen CY, Chen JH, Kuo TS. Review of telemedicine projects in Taiwan. Int J Med Inform. 2001;61(2-3):117-29. 10.1016/s1386-5056(01)00134-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

147. Geissbuhler A, Bagayoko CO, Ly O. The RAFT network: 5 years of distance continuing medical education and tele-consultations over the Internet in French-speaking Africa. Inte J Med Inform. 2007;76(5-6):351-6. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.01.012 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

148. Gerbert B, Bronstone A, Maurer T, Berger T, McPhee SJ, Caspers N. The effectiveness of an Internet-based tutorial in improving primary care physicians' skin cancer triage skills. J Cancer Educ. 2002;17(1):7. 10.1080/08858190209528784 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

149. Goodyear-Smith F, Whitehorn M, McCormick R. Experiences and preferences of general practitioners regarding continuing medical education: a qualitative study. N Z Med J. 2003;116(1172):U399. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

150. Klein M, Niebuhr V, D'Alessandro D. Innovative online faculty development utilizing the power of social media. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13(6):564-9. 10.1016/j.acap.2013.07.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

151. Margolis A, Gonzalez-Martinez F, Noboa O, et al.. Online continuing medical education for the Latin American nephrology community. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;216:372-5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

152. Murphy-Southwick C, McBride M. Geriatric education across 94 million acres: adapting conference programming in a rural state. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2006;26(4):25-36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

153. Sherman A. Continuing medical education methodology: current trends and applications in wound care. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(4):853-6. 10.1177/193229681000400413 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

154. Bond SE, Crowther SP, Adhikari S, et al.. Design and implementation of a novel web-based e-learning tool for education of health professionals on the antibiotic Vancomycin. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(3):e93. 10.2196/jmir.6971 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

155. Anthierens S, Tonkin-Crine S, Douglas E, et al.. General practitioners' views on the acceptability and applicability of a web-based intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for acute cough in multiple European countries: a qualitative study prior to a randomised trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:101. 10.1186/1471-2296-13-101 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

156. Bassey IE, Ekanem IA, Olasode BJ, Jombo GTA. Web-based learning as an important bridge in information divide in contemporary practice of pathology in the developing world: findings from Nigeria. Internet J Third World Med. 2010;8(2) [Google Scholar]

157. Bellande BJ. The future of CME. South Med J. 1991;84(8):1007-11. 10.1097/00007611-199108000-00014 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

158. Nafrawi AG. The future of CME. South Med J. 1992;85(2):221. 10.1097/00007611-199202000-00032 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

159. Bonevski B, Magin P, Horton G, Bryant J, Randell M, Kimlin MG. An internet based approach to improve general practitioners' knowledge and practices: the development and pilot testing of the “ABC's of vitamin D” program. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(6):413-22. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.01.006 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

160. Burgos F, Disdier C, De Santamaria EL, et al.. Telemedicine enhances quality of forced spirometry in primary care. Eur Respir J. 2012;39(6):1313-1318. 10.1183/09031936.00168010 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

161. Carrizosa J, Braga P, Albuquerque M, et al.. Epilepsy for primary health care: a cost-effective Latin American E-learning initiative. Epileptic Disord. 2018;20(5):386-395. 10.1684/epd.2018.0997 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

162. Cates JR, Diehl SJ, Fuemmeler BF, et al.. Toward optimal communication about HPV vaccination for preteens and their parents: evaluation of an online training for pediatric and family medicine health care providers. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2020;26(2):159-167. 10.1097/phh.0000000000001022 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

163. Chandrasekaran A, Thukral A, Deorari AK. E-learning in newborn health-a paradigm shift for continuing professional development for doctors and nurses. Indian J Pediatr. 2014;81(12):1376-80. 10.1007/s12098-014-1362-2 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

164. Chio KS. Effective Practices in Providing Online, In-Service Training to Health Professionals in Low-Resource Settings. Inter J Train Dev. 2012;16(3):228-234. [Google Scholar]

166. Jennings AA, Boyle S, Foley T. The development and evaluation of an online dementia resource for primary care based health professionals. Internet Interv. 2018;11:47-52. 10.1016/j.invent.2018.01.004 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

167. Kauffman L, Weisberg EM, Zember WF, Fishman EK. # RadEd: How and why to use Twitter for online radiology education. Curr Probl Diag Radiol. 2021;50(3):369-373. 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2021.02.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

168. Kemper KJ, Gardiner P, Gobble J, Mitra A, Woods C. Randomized controlled trial comparing four strategies for delivering e-curriculum to health care professionals [ISRCTN88148532]. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:2. 10.1186/1472-6920-6-2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

169. Lund A, Lam K, Parks P. Disaster Medicine Online: evaluation of an online, modular, interactive, asynchronous curriculum. CJEM. 2002;4(6):408-13. 10.1017/s1481803500007910 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

170. Marcinkiewicz A, Cybart A, Chrominska-Szosland D, Nosko J. Nowe formy ksztalcenia w medycynie pracy. [New forms of training in occupational medicine]. Med Pr. 2003;54(6):573-578. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

171. Melo MD, Silva NL, Liu PM, et al.. E-Learning and Simulation on a pré-hospital emergency course: a participant’s perspective. Curso de emergência utilizando E-learning e simulação: visão do participante. Rev Bras Educ Méd. 2016;40(4):713-719. 10.1590/1981-52712015v40n4e02482014 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

172. Stoner SA, Mikko AT, Carpenter KM. Web-based training for primary care providers on screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014;47(5):362-70. 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.06.009 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

173. Huang K-J, Cen G, Qiu Z-J, Jiang T, Cao J, Fu C-Y. Application of international videoconferences for continuing medical education programs related to laparoscopic surgery. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(2):157-60. 10.1089/tmj.2013.0070 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

174. Isbej L, Uribe J, Carrasco O, et al.. Experiencia de educacion continua en linea en gastroenterologia para medicos no especialistas. [Experience of continuing online education in gastroenterology for non specialist medical doctors]. Rev Med Chil. 2019;147(8):1059-1066. 10.4067/S0034-98872019000801059 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

175. Casebeer L, Allison J, Spettell CM. Designing tailored Web-based instruction to improve practicing physicians' chlamydial screening rates. Acad Med. 2002;77(9):929. 10.1097/00001888-200209000-00032 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

176. Schroeder AN, Hall MM, Kruse RC. Sports ultrasound training during a pandemic: developing a “Hands-on” skill through distance learning. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;99(9):860-862. 10.1097/phm.0000000000001515 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

177. Larson Williams A, Hawkins A, Sabin L, et al.. Motivating HIV providers in Vietnam to learn: a mixed-methods analysis of a mobile health continuing medical education intervention. JMIR Med Educ. 2019;5(1):e12058. 10.2196/12058 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

178. Kimura S, Onishi H, Kawamata M. Characteristics and perceptions of twice-weekly webinars for primary care physicians in Japan: a qualitative study. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:229-238. 10.5116/ijme.5b6b.21e1 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

179. Melus-Palazon E, Bartolome-Moreno C, Palacin-Arbues JC, et al.. Experience with using second life for medical education in a family and community medicine education unit. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:30. 10.1186/1472-6920-12-30 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

180. Nchise A, Boateng R, Mbarika V, Saiba E, Johnson O. The challenge of taking baby steps-Preliminary insights into telemedicine adoption in Rwanda. Health Pol Technol. 2012;1(4):207-213. 10.1016/j.hlpt.2012.10.004 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

181. Vervoort D, Ma X, Bookholane H, Nguyen TC. Conference cancelled: The equitable flip side of the academic surgery coin. Am J Surg. 2020;220(6):1539-1540. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.07.008 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

182. Wallis JW, Parker JA. Use of the Internet for teaching in nuclear medicine. Semin Nucl Med. 1998;28(2):165-76. 10.1016/s0001-2998(98)80006-8 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

183. Allen M, Sargeant J, Mann K, Fleming M, Premi J. Videoconferencing for practice-based small-group continuing medical education: feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and cost. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003;23(1):38-47. 10.1002/chp.1340230107 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

184. Butzlaff M, Telzerow A, Lange S, Kruger N. Arzte, internet und neues wissen nutzung und effizienz von neuen weiterbildungsmedien im krankenhaus. [Physicians, internet and new knowledge. Utilization and efficiency of new continuing education media in the hospital]. Med Klin (Munich). 2001;96(6):309-20. 10.1007/pl00002211 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

185. Casanova Dias M, Giacco D, Hanon C. Early career psychiatrists' preferences on e-learning: Viewpoint from the EPA committee on education. Eur Psychiatry. 2017;42:86-88. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.12.003 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

186. Crandall LA, Coggan JM. Impact of new information technologies on training and continuing education for rural health professionals. J Rural Health. 1994;10(3):208-15. 10.1111/j.1748-0361.1994.tb00231.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

187. Gjersvik PJ, Nylenna M, Aasland OG. Hvordan holder norske hudleger seg fa*glig oppdatert? [How do Norwegian dermatologists keep themselves professionally updated?]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2001;121(30):3515-8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

188. Jafari P, Kostas T, Levine S, et al.. ECHO-Chicago Geriatrics: using telementoring to “geriatricize” the primary care workforce. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2019:1-9. 10.1080/02701960.2019.1572005 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

189. Kristensen I, Lindh J, Nilsson P, et al.. Telemedicine as a tool for sharing competence in paediatric radiotherapy: implementation and initial experiences from a Swedish project. Acta Oncol. 2009;48(1):146-52. 10.1080/02841860802409520 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

190. Landman A, Yagi Y, Gilbertson J, Dawson R, Marchevsky A, Becich MJ. Prototype Web-based continuing medical education using FlashPix images. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000:462-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

191. Lim CCT, Yang GL. Electronic teaching files and continuing professional development in radiology. Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2006;2(2):e5. 10.2349/biij.2.2.e5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

192. Murad A, Lederman R, Bosua R, Chang S, Wark JD. Enhancing general practitioners participation in a virtual community of practice for continuing medical education: an exploratory study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;239:97-103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

193. Sethi SK, Singla S. Virtual pediatric renal grand rounds: An innovative e-learning. Pediatr Nephrol. 2011;26(1):159-160. 10.1007/s00467-010-1613-z [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

194. Sethi SK, Desai TP, Jhaveri KD. Online blogging during conferences: An innovative way of e-learning. Kidney Int. 2010;78(12):1199-1201. 10.1038/ki.2010.395 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

195. Sweetman G, Brazil V. Education links between the Australian rural and tertiary emergency departments: Videoconference can support a virtual learning community. Emerg Med Australas. 2007;19(2):176-177. 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2007.00951.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

196. Ure B, Zoeller C, Lacher M. The role of new information technology meeting the global need and gap of education in pediatric surgery. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2015;24(3):134-7. 10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2015.02.012 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

197. Vervoort D, Dearani JA, Starnes VA, Thourani VH, Nguyen TC. Brave New World: Virtual conferencing and surgical education in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 era. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;161(3):748-752. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.07.094 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

198. Yadav H, Lin WY. Teleprimary care in Malaysia: a tool for teleconsultation and distance learning in health care. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2001;13 Suppl:S58-61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

199. Kerfoot BP, Baker H. An online spaced-education game for global continuing medical education: a randomized trial. Ann Surgery. 2012;256(1):33-8. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31825b3912 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

200. Wang F. Valuation of online continuing medical education and telemedicine in Taiwan. J Educ Technol Society. 2008;11(4):190-198. [Google Scholar]

201. Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Wall T, et al.. Multicomponent Internet continuing medical education to promote chlamydia screening. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(3):285-90. 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.12.013 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

202. Bos-Bonnie LHA, van Bergen JEAM, Te Pas E, Kijser MA, van Dijk N. Effectiveness of an individual, online e-learning program about sexually transmitted infections: a prospective cohort study. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;18(1):57. 10.1186/s12875-017-0625-1 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

203. Calabro GE, Tognetto A, Mazzaccara A, et al.. Scienze omiche e capacity building dei professionisti sanitari: corso di formazione a distanza per i medici italiani [Omic sciences and capacity building of health professionals: a distance learning training course for Italian physicians, 2017-2018]. Ig Sanita Pubbl. 2019;75(2):105-124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

204. Carroll JC, Grad R, Allanson JE, et al.. The gene messenger impact project: an innovative genetics continuing education strategy for primary care providers. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016;36(3):178-85. 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000079 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

205. Casebeer L, Andolsek K, Abdolrasulnia M, et al.. Evaluation of an online bioterrorism continuing medical education course. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(2):137-44. 10.1002/chp.62 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

206. Casebeer L, Brown J, Roepke N, et al.. Evidence-based choices of physicians: a comparative analysis of physicians participating in Internet CME and non-participants. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:42. 10.1186/1472-6920-10-42 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

207. Casebeer LL, Strasser SM, Spettell CM, et al.. Designing tailored Web-based instruction to improve practicing physicians' preventive practices. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3):e20. 10.2196/jmir.5.3.e20 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

208. Choi Y, Peairs KS, Sateia HF, Riddell R, Zhang C, McGuire MJ. High value care in cancer surveillance and screening: evaluating an e-curriculum for primary care providers. J Cancer Educ. 2021. 10.1007/s13187-021-01986-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

209. Curran VR, Fleet LJ, Kirby F. A comparative evaluation of the effect of Internet-based CME delivery format on satisfaction, knowledge and confidence. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:10. 10.1186/1472-6920-10-10 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

210. Gagnon M-P, Legare F, Labrecque M, Fremont P, Cauchon M, Desmartis M. Perceived barriers to completing an e-learning program on evidence-based medicine. Inform Prim Care. 2007;15(2):83-91. 10.14236/jhi.v15i2.646 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

211. Gallardo-Rincon H, Saucedo-Martinez R, Mujica-Rosales R, et al.. Online continuing medical education as a key link for successful noncommunicable disease self-management: the CASALUD TM Model. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2017;10:443-455. 10.2147/DMSO.S137891 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

212. Hampton CL, et al.. The interactive videoconference: an effective CME delivery system. J Continu Educ Health Prof. 1994;14(2):83-89. 10.1002/chp.4750140204 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

213. Harris JM, Salasche SJ, Harris RB. Can Internet-based continuing medical education improve physicians' skin cancer knowledge and skills? J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(1):50-6. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.00615.x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

214. Henny KD, Duke CC, Sutton MY. Uptake of online HIV-related continuing medical education training among primary care providers in Southeast United States, 2017-2018. AIDS Care. 2021;33(12):1515-1524. 10.1080/09540121.2020.1822986 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

215. Hicks KK, Murano PS. Online nutrition and T2DM continuing medical education course launched on state-level medical association. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:413-418. 10.2147/AMEP.S138278 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

216. Kerfoot BP, Turchin A, Breydo E, Gagnon D, Conlin PR. An online spaced-education game among clinicians improves their patients' time to blood pressure control: a randomized controlled trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(3):468-74. 10.1161/circoutcomes.113.000814 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

217. Lineker SC, Fleet LJ, Bell MJ, et al.. Getting a grip on Arthritis online: responses of rural/remote primary care providers to a web-based continuing medical education programme. Can J Rural Med. 2019;24(2):52-60. 10.4103/CJRM.CJRM_10_18 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

218. Markova A, Weinstock MA, Risica P, et al.. Effect of a web-based curriculum on primary care practice: basic skin cancer triage trial. Fam Med. 2013;45(8):558-68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

219. Mazzuoccolo LD, Marciano S, Echeverria CM. Implementacion de una modalidad de educacion medica a distancia en psoriasis. [Implementation of a telementoring model of medical education in psoriasis]. Medicina (B Aires). 2016;76(6):359-361. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

220. McFadden P, Crim A. Comparison of the effectiveness of interactive didactic lecture versus online simulation-based CME programs directed at improving the diagnostic capabilities of primary care practitioners. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016;36(1):32-7. 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000061 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

221. Mistraletti G, Umbrello M, Anania S, et al.. Neurological assessment with validated tools in general ICU: multicenter, randomized, before and after, pragmatic study to evaluate the effectiveness of an e-learning platform for continuous medical education. Minerva Anestesiol. 2017;83(2):145-154. 10.23736/S0375-9393.16.11103-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

222. Ng EWM, Le Marne F, Sinclair KG, et al.. Evaluation of an educational video providing key messages for doctors to counsel families following a first afebrile seizure. J Paediatr Child Health. Feb2021;57(2):198-203. 10.1111/jpc.15171 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

223. Nicastro E, Lo Vecchio A, Liguoro I, et al.. The impact of e-learning on adherence to guidelines for acute gastroenteritis: a single-arm intervention study. PloS One. 2015;10(7):e132213. 10.1371/journal.pone.0132213 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

224. Ozturk E, van Iersel M, van Loon K, et al.. Interactive online learning on perioperative management of elderly patients. Am J Surg. 2018;216(3):624-629. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.01.071 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

225. Pelayo M, Cebrian D, Areosa A, Agra Y, Izquierdo JV, Buendia F. Effects of online palliative care training on knowledge, attitude and satisfaction of primary care physicians. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:37. 10.1186/1471-2296-12-37 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

226. Samuelson KW, Koenig CJ, McCamish N, et al.. Web-based PTSD training for primary care providers: a pilot study. Psychol Serv. 2014;11(2):153-61. 10.1037/a0034855 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

227. Thielmann A, Puth M-T, Weltermann B. Improving knowledge on vaccine storage management in general practices: Learning effectiveness of an online-based program. Vaccine. 2020;38(47):7551-7557. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.049 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

228. Woods JM, Scott HF, Mullan PC, et al.. Using an eLearning module to facilitate sepsis knowledge acquisition across multiple institutions and learner disciplines. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021;37(12)31070-e1074. 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001902 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

229. Young KJ, Kim JJ, Yeung G, Sit C, Tobe SW. Physician preferences for accredited online continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(4):241-6. 10.1002/chp.20136 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

230. Curran VR, Hoekman T, Gulliver W, Landells I, Hatcher L. Web-based continuing medical education (I): field test of a hybrid computer-mediated instructional delivery system. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2000;20(2):97-105. 10.1002/chp.1340200206 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

231. Dubner SJ, Moss AJ, Schapachnik ES, et al.. Web-based virtual cardiac symposia: A new approach for worldwide professional medical education. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2007;12(2):165-170. 10.1111/j.1542-474X.2007.00156.x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

232. Haller U, Gabathuler H. Telemedical training at the Department of Gynaecology, University Hospital Zurich. Curr Probl Dematol. 2003;32:39-42. 10.1159/000067376 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

233. El-Ghandour NMF, Ezzat AAM, Zaazoue MA, Gonzalez-Lopez P, Jhawar BS, Soliman MAR. Virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a turning point in neurosurgical education. Neurosurg Focus. 2020;49(6):E18. 10.3171/2020.9.Focus20634 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

234. Bitterman JE, Schappert J, Schaefer J. Overcoming remoteness in CME videoteleconferencing: “I want my MD TV.”. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2000;20(1):7-12. 10.1002/chp.1340200103 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

235. Burkholder TW, Bellows JW, King RA. Free open access medical education (FOAM) in emergency medicine: the global distribution of users in 2016. West J Emerg Med. 2018;19(3):600-605. 10.5811/westjem.2018.3.36825 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

236. Curran V, Fleet L, Simmons K, Ravalia M, Snow P. Exploratory study of rural physicians' self-directed learning experiences in a digital age. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016;36(4):284-289. 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000111 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

237. de'Angelis N, Gavriilidis P, Martinez-Perez A, et al.. Educational value of surgical videos on YouTube: quality assessment of laparoscopic appendectomy videos by senior surgeons vs. novice trainees. World J Emerg Surg. 2019;14:22. 10.1186/s13017-019-0241-6 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

238. Della Mea V, Carbone A, Greatti E, Beltrami CA. Introducing videoconferencing into educational oncopathology seminars: technical aspects, user satisfaction and open issues. J Telemed Telecare. 2003;9(2):95-8. 10.1258/135763303321327957 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

239. Dhanasekaran K, Babu R, Kumar V, Singh S, Hariprasad R. Factors influencing the retention of participants in online cancer screening training programs in India. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):220. 10.1186/s12909-020-02144-y [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]