Within continuing medication education (CME), it has been argued that an “authentic” clinical context should be built into CME activities for knowledge to be effectively translated into clinical practice. However, although context is considered significant in the success (or lack thereof) of an intervention, there is a lack of consensus on what exactly context is. This scoping review arises from concerns surrounding the opaque, complex, and potentially problematic relationship between context and the effective design and implementation of CME interventions. In this article, we present a protocol for examining how context is discussed within the CME literature. The specific purpose of this scoping review is to summarize the breadth of existing evidence on context within the North American CME literature. The scoping review methodology will also highlight gaps in the current literature, which can inform future research endeavors.
Ms. Grant: Research Associate, Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto. Ms. Sajdlowska: Research Assistant, School of Nursing, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Dr. Van Hoof: Associate Professor, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, and Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington. Dr. Kitto: Director of Research, Continuing Professional Development and Associate Professor, Department of Innovation in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Correspondence: Simon Kitto, PhD, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Room 2211, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8MG; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Disclosures: The authors report the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education (SACME) commissioned the project with funding from Pfizer, Inc. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of SACME or Pfizer, Inc. The authors declare no conflict of interest.