Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24976964›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2014

Offline eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction.

Kristine Rasmussen, José Marcano Belisario, Petra A Wark, Joseph Antonio Molina, Stewart Lee Loong, Ziva Cotic, Nikos Papachristou, Eva Riboli-Sasco, Lorainne Tudor Car, Eve Marie Musulanov and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Kristine RasmussenGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
José Marcano BelisarioGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Petra A WarkGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Joseph Antonio MolinaNational Healthcare Group, Singapore.
Stewart Lee LoongGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ziva CoticGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Nikos PapachristouGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Eva Riboli-SascoGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Lorainne Tudor CarGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Eve Marie MusulanovGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Holger KunzGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Yanfeng ZhangDepartment of Integrated Early Childhood Development, Capital Institute of Pediatrics, Chaoyang District Beijing, 100020, P.R. China.
Pradeep Paul GeorgeNational Healthcare Group, Singapore.
Bee Hoon HengNational Healthcare Group, Singapore.
Erica Lynette WheelerKnowledge, Ethics and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Najeeb Al ShorbajiKnowledge, Ethics and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Igor SvabDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Rifat AtunDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard, MA, USA.
Azeem MajeedGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Josip CarGlobal eHealth Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK ; Health Services and Outcomes Research Programme, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Imperial College & Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe world is short of 7.2 million health-care workers and this figure is growing. The shortage of teachers is even greater, which limits traditional education modes. eLearning may help overcome this training need. Offline eLearning is useful in remote and resource-limited settings with poor internet access. To inform investments in offline eLearning, we need to establish its effectiveness in terms of gaining knowledge and skills, students' satisfaction and attitudes towards eLearning.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of offline eLearning for students enrolled in undergraduate, health-related university degrees. We included randomised controlled trials that compared offline eLearning to traditional learning or an alternative eLearning method. We searched the major bibliographic databases in August 2013 to identify articles that focused primarily on students' knowledge, skills, satisfaction and attitudes toward eLearning, and health economic information and adverse effects as secondary outcomes. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. We synthesized the findings using a thematic summary approach.

findingsForty-nine studies, including 4955 students enrolled in undergraduate medical, dentistry, nursing, psychology, or physical therapy studies, met the inclusion criteria. Eleven of the 33 studies testing knowledge gains found significantly higher gains in the eLearning intervention groups compared to traditional learning, whereas 21 did not detect significant differences or found mixed results. One study did not test for differences. Eight studies detected significantly higher skill gains in the eLearning intervention groups, whilst the other 5 testing skill gains did not detect differences between groups. No study found offline eLearning as inferior. Generally no differences in attitudes or preference of eLearning over traditional learning were observed. No clear trends were found in the comparison of different modes of eLearning. Most of the studies were small and subject to several biases.

conclusionsOur results suggest that offline eLearning is equivalent and possibly superior to traditional learning regarding knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. Although a robust conclusion cannot be drawn due to variable quality of the evidence, these results justify further investment into offline eLearning to address the global health care workforce shortage.

Identifiers

PMID24976964
PMCPMC4073241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.