Continuing medical education in Brazil: what about obstetricians and gynecologists?

• Autor(a) principal: Sass, Nelson [UNIFESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2005
• Outros Autores: Torloni, Maria Regina [UNIFESP], Soares, Bernardo Garcia De Oliveira [UNIFESP], Atallah, Álvaro Nagib [UNIFESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802005000100002; http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/2382
• topic: Continuing medical education; Obstetrics; Gynecology; Evidence-based medicine; Medical education; Educação médica continuada; Ginecologia; Obstetrícia; Medicina baseada em evidências; Educação médica

CONTEXT: In Brazil, obstetricians and gynecologists are not required to submit to periodical evaluations to ascertain their professional competence in dealing with new concepts and therapies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of a group of obstetricians and gynecologists on a written evidence-based obstetrics test and determine their opinions and use of systematic reviews. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Brazilian Obstetrics and Gynecology Congress 2001. METHODS: 230 doctors agreed to participate in the study during a national obstetrics and gynecology congress. Participants took an individual anonymous written multiple-choice test with seven questions on clinical obstetrics, one question on the interpretation of a meta-analysis graph and two questions on their opinions and actual use of systematic reviews. Scores were analyzed and compared after grouping the participants according to year of graduation, residence training, doctoral program and faculty status. RESULTS: The general average score was 49.2 ± 17.4. The scores tended to decline as the years since graduation advanced. Doctors who graduated in the last five years had higher scores than those who graduated over 25 years ago (52.2 versus 42.9). The performance did not vary according to medical residence, postgraduate program or teaching status. While 98.2% considered systematic reviews relevant, only 54.9% said that they routinely used this source of information. DISCUSSION: The participants' average score was low, even though they were highly qualified and trained. Despite the limitations of the study, the results are worrisome. If motivated physicians participating in a national congress obtained such low scores, we can speculate that the results might be even worse among other doctors that do not attend these events. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Brazilian obstetricians and gynecologists could benefit from continuing medical education and raise questions about the recycling methods currently available.