Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24976965›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2014

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

Pradeep Paul George, Nikos Papachristou, José Marcano Belisario, Wei Wang, Petra A Wark, Ziva Cotic, Kristine Rasmussen, René Sluiter, Eva Riboli-Sasco, Lorainne Tudor Car and 8 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT02907541 (Evaluation of eLearning of Quality Improvement Methods), which is not on this map. Cited by 182 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
182citing papers in PubMed, 19 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.

NCT02907541 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of eLearning of Quality Improvement Methods

TypeinterventionalSponsorChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation TrustRan2017 to 2018Enrolled250ConditionsLearning, Quality Improvement, eLearningArmsQI4U learning, Facilitated learning, QI4U and Facilitated learning
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

182 citing papers in PubMed, 19 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. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial

122 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

18 authors.

Pradeep Paul GeorgeHealth Services and Outcomes Research, National Healthcare Group, Singapore ; Joint first authors.
Nikos PapachristouGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK ; Joint first authors.
José Marcano BelisarioHealth Services and Outcomes Research, National Healthcare Group, Singapore.
Wei WangDepartment of Integrated Early Childhood Development, Capital Institute of Pediatrics, Chaoyang District Beijing, P.R. China.
Petra A WarkGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ziva CoticGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Kristine RasmussenGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
René SluiterDepartment of Health Evidence, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Eva Riboli-SascoGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Lorainne Tudor CarDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Eve Marie MusulanovGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Joseph Antonio MolinaHealth Services and Outcomes Research, National Healthcare Group, Singapore.
Bee Hoon HengHealth Services and Outcomes Research, National Healthcare Group, Singapore.
Yanfeng ZhangDepartment of Integrated Early Childhood Development, Capital Institute of Pediatrics, Chaoyang District Beijing, P.R. China.
Erica Lynette WheelerKnowledge, Ethics and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Najeeb Al ShorbajiDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Josip CarHealth Services and Outcomes Research, National Healthcare Group, Singapore ; 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

backgroundHealth systems worldwide are facing shortages in health professional workforce. Several studies have demonstrated the direct correlation between the availability of health workers, coverage of health services, and population health outcomes. To address this shortage, online eLearning is increasingly being adopted in health professionals' education. To inform policy-making, in online eLearning, we need to determine its effectiveness.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of online eLearning through a comprehensive search of the major databases for randomised controlled trials that compared online eLearning to traditional learning or alternative learning methods. The search period was from January 2000 to August 2013. We included articles which primarily focused on students' knowledge, skills, satisfaction and attitudes toward eLearning and cost-effectiveness and adverse effects as secondary outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. Due to significant heterogeneity among the included studies, we presented our results as a narrative synthesis.

findingsFifty-nine studies, including 6750 students enrolled in medicine, dentistry, nursing, physical therapy and pharmacy studies, met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the 50 studies testing knowledge gains found significantly higher gains in the online eLearning intervention groups compared to traditional learning, whereas 27 did not detect significant differences or found mixed results. Eleven studies did not test for differences. Six studies detected significantly higher skill gains in the online eLearning intervention groups, whilst 3 other studies testing skill gains did not detect differences between groups and 1 study showed mixed results. Twelve studies tested students' attitudes, of which 8 studies showed no differences in attitudes or preferences for online eLearning. Students' satisfaction was measured in 29 studies, 4 studies showed higher satisfaction for online eLearning and 20 studies showed no difference in satisfaction between online eLearning and traditional learning. Risk of bias was high for several of the included studies.

conclusionThe current evidence base suggests that online eLearning is equivalent, possibly superior to traditional learning. These findings present a potential incentive for policy makers to cautiously encourage its adoption, while respecting the heterogeneity among the studies.

Identifiers

PMID24976965
PMCPMC4073252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.