ArticlePloS one2025
Impacts of continuing education for health professionals in primary health care: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionContinuing Health Education (CHE) is an essential strategy for the continuous qualification of Primary Health Care (PHC) professionals, promoting knowledge updating and improving the quality of services. In Brazil, this process is especially relevant given the challenges faced by the Unified Health System (SUS) and the need for training aligned with local demands. Understanding the impact of CHE actions in PHC is crucial to identify their effects on professional practice and health outcomes.
objectiveTo identify and analyze the evidence on the impacts of CHE for health professionals in the context of Primary Health Care in Brazil.
methodThis is a scoping review conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and reported based on the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, SciELO, LILACS, EMBASE, and Web of Science, and in gray literature through Google Scholar. Studies were selected independently by two researchers using Rayyan software.
resultsA total of 16 studies were included, of which 15 were scientific articles and one a doctoral thesis. Most of the CHE actions analyzed were carried out in person (56%), although technology-mediated online teaching and hybrid approaches have intensified in recent years. The studies covered a range of thematic areas, including family health, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, child development, and the use of herbal medicines. The evaluation of the impact of CHE focused primarily on work process indicators - such as adherence to protocols, teamwork, and changes in professional practice - while health outcome indicators, such as improved prenatal care, vaccination coverage, and control of chronic diseases, were less frequently analyzed.
conclusionContinuing health education has a positive impact on the training of primary care professionals and the qualification of health services. However, measuring the effects of continuing education on health outcomes remains incipient, pointing to the need for more robust studies that assess long-term impacts. In addition, the expansion of flexible strategies, such as technology-mediated teaching and hybrid approaches, can contribute to greater equity in access to professional training, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and strengthening primary care in Brazil. PRE-REGISTRATION:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.