Maintenance of Certification in Radiology: Eliciting Radiologist Preferences Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively assess radiologists' preferences for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) and Continuing Certification (CC) using a survey of attitudes and perceptions. METHODS: A questionnaire that assessed attitudes and perceptions and included a discrete choice or trade-off task was developed by ACR staff in conjunction with an independent market research agency and the Survey Subcommittee of the ACR Task Force on Certification in Radiology. The trade-off exercise was integrated into this methodology to better understand the underlying utilities or preferences of the components of MOC-CC among respondents and to better enable specific recommendations on how to optimize the current program. The survey was administered via e-mail to 17,305 ACR members. The demographic and practice characteristics of the 1,994 (11.5%) respondents were similar to the ACR radiologist membership and correspond to a normal distribution. At a 95% confidence level, with a margin of error 2.1%, we believe that the respondent population fairly reflects the actual population. RESULTS: Similar proportions judged the existing program as excellent or very good (36%), or fair or poor (35%), with 27% neutral. MOC-CC was perceived more often as excellent or very good by those who were grandfathered yet still participating in MOC, were in academic practice, were in an urban setting, were older, or had a role with the ABR. In contrast, MOC-CC was more often judged as fair or poor by those who were not grandfathered, were in private practice, were in a rural setting, or were younger. The current MOC-CC program is not well regarded by diplomates, with few showing preference or acceptability. The program's reception is most sensitive to the following attributes absence or presence of a practice quality improvement requirement, Online Longitudinal Assessment content including or excluding general radiology in addition to one's specialty and inclusion or exclusion of self-assessment as part of the CME. CONCLUSION: ACR members diverged in their attitudes toward MOC, with differences among specific demographic and practice characteristics. The current package of features of MOC-CC was widely viewed as unsatisfactory, and a more optimal feature set arose from a simulation exercise.