JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

An estimated 18-23 million Americans have had Long COVID (LC), yet 54% and 72% of US physicians reported not being confident in diagnosing and treating LC, respectively. Continuing Medical Education (CME) is crucial to maintaining and improving clinical skills, and CME that incorporates needs-based educational methods is associated with improved patient outcomes. Given limited clinician familiarity with LC, there is a need for an effective, widely-accessible LC CME program.

Objective:

This study assessed the effectiveness of two Stanford University-organized LC CME webinars, which aimed to provide comprehensive, up-to-date evaluation and management strategies through multidisciplinary didactic presentations and question-and-answer sessions.

Methods:

Data from webinar attendees were collected through CME registration and pre/post-webinar surveys. Registration surveys consisted of multiple-choice questions on profession, practice setting, experience treating vulnerable populations, and perception of LC. Pre/post-webinar surveys consisted of multiple-choice questions on perception of LC, confidence in diagnosing LC, and familiarity with LC care. Pre-/post-webinar responses were compared using the chi-square test of independence, with statistical significance defined as P≤.05.

Results:

The August 2024 webinar had 449 registrants: 48.6% (218/449) were physicians, 29.0% (130/449) identified an academic medical center affiliation, and 68.4% (307/449) considered LC a very or somewhat serious problem. The attendee count was 248, with 116 and 90 attendees completing the pre-/post-webinar surveys, respectively. The proportion of respondents indicating that LC is a very or somewhat serious problem did not significantly differ between the pre- (93/115, 80.9%) and post-CME (75/88, 85.2%) surveys (P=.42). There were significant pre-to-post increases in the proportion of respondents indicating they were very confident in their LC diagnosis ability (11/102, 10.8%, to 25/79, 31.6%, P<.001) and very familiar with LC care (10/91, 11.0%, to 22/75, 29.3%, P=.0029). The May 2025 webinar had 468 registrants: 52.6% (246/468) were physicians, 24.8% (116/468) identified an academic medical center affiliation, and 71.4% (334/468) considered LC a very or somewhat serious problem. The attendee count was 264, with 135 and 119 attendees completing the pre-/post-webinar surveys, respectively. The proportion of respondents indicating that LC is a very or somewhat serious problem did not significantly differ between the pre- (105/134, 78.4%) and post-CME (102/118, 86.4%) surveys (P=.09). There was a significant pre-to-post increase in the proportion of respondents indicating they were very familiar with LC care (12/116, 10.3%, to 60/111, 54.1%, P<.001).

Conclusions:

CME participation was associated with significant improvements in self-reported confidence diagnosing LC and familiarity with LC care, highlighting the potential of virtual CME programs to address knowledge gaps.