The influence of double-credit evidence-based continuing medical education on presenters and learners.

Background: Medical specialties are adopting methods to improve continuing medical education (CME). A "double credit" option, sponsored by the American Academy of Family Physicians, is now available for presentations submitted and approved as evidence based (EB).

Objective: To compare usual and double-credit CME presentations to determine differences in preparation resources and time, and to compare conference attendees' satisfaction. Those not submitting double-credit applications were asked about perceived barriers.

Methods: Three pretested, written surveys were administered at a 2.5 day CME conference held annually in Southeastern Wisconsin. Subjects were 38 presenters and 172 attendees, mostly primary care physicians.

Results: Twelve presentations were approved for double-credit; these presenters used a greater percentage of on-line EB resources to prepare their talks (64% versus 23%), and preparation required an additional 4.75 hours on average. Over 90% of attendees perceived greater conference quality due to the EB emphasis. Top barriers to double-credit EB applications were time limits and perceptions that topics were inappropriate.

Conclusions: Double-credit presenters use a greater percentage of EB resources, while their counterparts used more professional experience to prepare CME presentations. Attendees reported improved quality and value with increased EB CME. Time is a perceived and real factor in preparing double-credit applications.