Congresos médicos en la era digital: una reflexión necesaria sobre modelos híbridos en educación médica continua

Carlos Santiago Piñel Pérez

doi:10.6018/edumed.695671

Autores/as

Carlos Santiago Piñel Pérez Hospital Quirónsalud San José / Universidad Europea https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6647-8718

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/edumed.695671

Palabras clave: educación médica continua, congresos médicos, modelos híbridos, accesibilidad formativa, diseño educativo

Resumen

En el contexto actual de transformación digital, resulta pertinente revisar el modelo tradicional de congresos médicos exclusivamente presenciales. Esta reflexión analiza el coste real (económico, laboral y personal) de dicho formato, así como la evidencia disponible sobre la eficacia de modelos online e híbridos en educación médica continua. Se discute además la influencia de los modelos de financiación en el diseño de los eventos formativos. Finalmente, se propone la adopción de formatos híbridos diseñados de forma deliberada, centrados en el impacto educativo y en una mayor accesibilidad para los profesionales sanitarios.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Metrics

Vistas/Descargas

Resumen
62
pdf
17

Citas

1. Chaker R, Hajj.Hassan M, Ozanne S. The effects of online continuing education for healthcare professionals: a systematic scoping review. Open Educ Stud. 2024, 6. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu.2022.0226.

2. Setia S, Tay J, Chia Y, et al. Massive open online courses (MOOCs) for continuing medical education: why and how? Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019, 10, 805–812. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S219104.

3. Jang A, Kim M, Lee S, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of online continuing medical education during the COVID.19 pandemic. Med Teach. 2023, 45, 852–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2183787.

4. Byungura J, Nyiringango G, Fors U, et al.. Online learning for continuous professional development of healthcare workers: an exploratory study on perceptions of healthcare managers in Rwanda. BMC Med Educ. 2022, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909.022.03938.y.

5. Cheng C, Papadakos J, Umakanthan B, et al. On the advantages and disadvantages of virtual continuing medical education: a scoping review. Can Med Educ J. 2023, 14, 41–74. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.75681.

6. Sullivan L. A systematic review to compare the effectiveness of face.to.face versus online (including blended learning) delivery of CME/CPD for healthcare practitioners. 2017. https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2017.731.

7. George P, Zhabenko O, Kyaw B, et al.. Online digital education for postregistration training of medical doctors: systematic review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019, 21. https://doi.org/10.2196/13269.

8. Colbenson G, Cook D, Stephenson C. Learner engagement, teaching effectiveness, and digital proficiency in in.person versus livestream continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000622.

9. Mueller M, Croghan I, Schroeder D, et al. Physician preferences for online and in.person continuing medical education: a cross.sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2024, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909.024.06046.1.

10. Adriaensen M, Ricci P, Prosch H, et al. Evolution of continuing medical education in radiology: on.site vs remote. Insights Imaging. 2024, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244.024.01764.y.

11. Zhao Y, Sun T, Zhang X, et al. The evolution of medical education in the era of COVID.19 and beyond: a longitudinal study. BMC Med Educ. 2024, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909.024.06271.8.

12. Kmietowicz Z. Industry sponsorship hits the headlines. BMJ. 2016, 355. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5585.

13. Wolfrey J, Brown S, Ebell M, et al. Continuing education that matters: a successful, evidence.based course with minimal pharmaceutical funding. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2012, 32, 212–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.21147.

14. Grundy Q, Millington A, Robinson A, et al. Exposure, access and interaction: a global analysis of sponsorship of nursing professional associations. J Adv Nurs. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15158.

15. Gunnarsson J, Ruskin G, Stuckler D, et al. Big food and drink sponsorship of conferences and speakers: a case study of one multinational company’s influence over knowledge dissemination and professional engagement. Public Health Nutr. 2023, 26, 1094–1111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980022002506.

16. Isaacs D. Industry sponsorship of scientific meetings: peaks and troughs. J Paediatr Child Health. 2012, 48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440.1754.2012.02492.x.

17. Lyu X, Li S. Professional medical education approaches: mobilizing evidence for clinicians. Front Med. 2023, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1071545.

18. Vallée A, Blacher J, Cariou A, et al. Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: systematic review and meta.analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020, 22. https://doi.org/10.2196/16504.

19. Rafi A, Anwar M, Younas A, et al. Paradigm shift in medical education due to the COVID.19 pandemic: guidelines for developing a blended learning curriculum in medical education. F1000Res. 2022, 11. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.74779.2.

20. Price D, Davis D, Filerman G. Systems.integrated CME: the implementation and outcomes imperative for continuing medical education in the learning health care enterprise. NAM Perspect. 2021. https://doi.org/10.31478/202110a.

21. Fehlberg Z, Long J, Kanga.Parabia A, et al. Embedding specialised educators in modalities for continuing medical education: a study of effectiveness, and health care practitioner and educator preferences. Clin Teach. 2025, 22. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.70013.