Continuing professional development (CPD) is a cornerstone of lifelong learning for general practitioners (GPs), encompassing both formal (e.g. courses, workshops) and informal (e.g. peer learning, self-directed) activities. While CPD is increasingly mandated through credit-based systems, concerns have emerged that such frameworks may encourage compliance-driven behaviour, limiting relevance to clinical practice and undermining professional autonomy. This scoping review will examine how GPs engage with CPD in terms of decision-making, motivation, and perceived value, and factors influencing their choice of CPD activities. This will be addressed through two sub-questions: (1) What personal, professional, contextual, organisational or systemic factors influence CPD choices? (2) What strategies do GPs use to identify, select, and prioritise CPD activities? A comprehensive systematic search will be conducted across MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ERIC, Scopus, Informit, and APA PsycINFO, supplemented by grey literature from stakeholder organisations, conference websites, and structured Google searches. Eligible studies will include empirical research on GPs’ CPD engagement in primary care settings within systems that mandate CPD participation. The review will follow JBI methodology and will be reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. By synthesising current evidence, the review seeks to inform the design of practitioner-centred CPD models that support reflective practice, lifelong learning, and improved patient care.
Alex: Welcome to another episode of ResearchPod.
Sam: Today, we're looking at a research protocol for a scoping review on how general practitioners—or GPs, the doctors who handle everyday family health care—choose their continuing professional development, or CPD. CPD is the ongoing learning doctors do after medical school, like workshops or chats with peers, to stay sharp and improve patient care. The central question is how GPs pick activities that matter to them, instead of just checking off required credits.
Alex: So this is asking why GPs sometimes choose quick credits over learning that fits their real work needs? Like, what's driving those choices in a system that makes learning mandatory?
Sam: Yes, exactly. Mandated credit systems get doctors participating, but they often lead to box-ticking—just doing enough to meet rules without real thought about personal gaps in knowledge. The review aims to map out personal factors, like career stage or interests, professional ones, like patient needs, and bigger ones, like time or rules, that shape those decisions.
Alex: Right, box-ticking makes sense—it's like finishing homework just to get the grade, not because you care about the subject. But for doctors facing patients with multiple health issues at once, doesn't that risk them missing useful skills?
Sam: That's the key concern. GPs deal with rising complexity, like patients with several conditions together, called multimorbidity, and poorly matched learning doesn't help them manage that well. The protocol notes this leads to frustration, burnout risk, and weaker care, because CPD feels disconnected from daily practice.
Alex: How does this protocol plan to sort through all that scattered info on what influences their picks?
Sam: They chose a scoping review, which is like making a detailed map of all the existing studies on a broad topic—gathering books from a huge library on GP learning choices, sorting them by themes, without judging each one's quality deeply. It's different from a narrow search for one answer; instead, it charts patterns in motivations, barriers, and strategies from research since 2010. They'll search big databases like MEDLINE and Embase, plus grey literature from conferences and groups, using a strict method from the Joanna Briggs Institute.
Huh... so it's not reading every study cover-to-cover, but cataloging to spot big patterns. That sounds efficient for something as messy as doctor decisions.
Sam: Precisely. Two reviewers will screen titles, read full texts independently, and chart data on things like why GPs pick certain workshops or peers—factors like relevance to patients or peer advice. This maps personal choices against systemic pressures, using ideas from theories on self-motivation and learning in context.
Alex: I see—so it could show how to shift from credit-chasing to learning that sticks, like goal-setting based on real practice gaps. What makes GPs choose, say, a workshop on multimorbidity over something generic?
Sam: The protocol highlights influences like perceived value to patients, learning style, career point, and support from colleagues or rules. For instance, GPs might prioritize interactive sessions over lectures if they see direct practice links. It also explores strategies, like reflecting on gaps or seeking peer input, to prioritize what's useful amid busy schedules.
Alex: Well, reflecting on gaps—that's like a doctor pausing after a tough case to think, 'I need better tools for this.' Does the review tie that to self-regulated learning, where you steer your own improvement?
Sam: Yes, self-regulated learning is when someone spots their own weaknesses, sets goals, checks progress, and adjusts—like a student planning study sessions around weak subjects, but for doctors with patients. The protocol plans to weave in frameworks like that, plus self-determination theory on inner drive versus outside rules, and situativity theory on how environment shapes learning. This helps synthesize why mandated CPD sometimes clashes with personal growth.
Alex: That model could be useful—notable for redesigning CPD to feel less like a chore. But with all this fragmentation in studies, how do they ensure the map is comprehensive?
Sam: They'll follow PRISMA-ScR guidelines for reporting, cover databases comprehensively, hand-search references, and include grey lit up to the first 100 relevant Google hits. Dual screening resolves disagreements, and charting covers study details, participant traits, and findings like motivators or barriers.
Sam: The protocol stresses this is timely amid GP shortages and complex care needs. By mapping evidence, it aims to guide practitioner-focused designs that boost reflection, autonomy, and better outcomes—reconciling mandates with meaningful engagement.
Alex: Makes sense. This sets up a clearer path for GPs to learn what truly helps their patients. Thanks for listening to ResearchPod.