Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions



HOME \| SITE MAP \| CONTACT US
Your Location: Home > Volume 22, Issue 1

CURRENT ISSUE BACK ISSUES SUBSCRIBE ADVERTISE ABOUT JCEHP FOR AUTHORS JCEHP AWARD SEARCH (Members only) FULL-TEXT		Volume 22 (1) Volume 22, Issue 1, Winter 2002 J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002; 22(1):55-62 ORIGINAL ARTICLES Medical education and communication companies: an updated in-depth profile Golden GA Parochka JN Overstreet KM A b s t r a c t INTRODUCTION: The integrity of medical education and communication companies (MECCs) and their role in continuing medical education (CME) are frequently challenged, perhaps because of a lack of published information characterizing these providers. Published in 1998, a survey of MECCs began the identification and description of these organizations so that meaningful conclusions could be drawn about their role in CME. The present study enhances the profile created by that original survey. METHODS: A 21-item questionnaire was mailed to 182 companies identified from 3 commercially available lists. RESULTS: Forty-six (25.2%) companies responded. Surveys revealed that 25 (54%) of the respondent companies have 1 to 25 employees, 66.6% have separate CME divisions, 64.4% are accredited to provide CME, 77.7% have at least 1 licensed health care professional on staff, and 33.2% of their leaders hold a doctoral degree and 28.8% hold professional licensure, whereas 88.6% have advisory boards, 93.1% of which review each CME activity. DISCUSSION: MECCs comprise a diverse group differing in size and accreditation status. They contribute to the CME community by providing a variety of services, with highly trained staff. Future studies of CME providers should continue to expand the base of knowledge regarding these organizations, resulting in better understanding among all types of providers, opportunities for collaboration, and, ultimately, education that improves patient care. Lessons for Practice Medical education and communication companies (MECCs) represent a large segment of the continuing education community, providing administrative support, meeting planning, editing, and project management services. Future research into MECCs should compare profiles of providers and measure areas of competency and standards of service. A more reliable data set describing MECCs and the disparate types of continuing education providers might enable continuing education planners to better determine which activities might be outsourced and which might be completed best by their own CME units. MeSH Terms: Accreditation; Comparative Study; Conflict of Interest; Cooperative Behavior; Data Collection; Drug Industry; Education, Medical, Continuing; Industry; Interinstitutional Relations; Internet; Questionnaires; Training Support
HOME \| SITE MAP \| CONTACT US Copyright © 1996-2012 JCEHP.com & The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions All rights reserved Disclaimer · About This Site · Web Editor · Make JCEHP Your Homepage Information on this site was last updated: 04 April 2012