Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26415677›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2015

Online technology use in physiotherapy teaching and learning: a systematic review of effectiveness and users' perceptions.

Aleksandra K Mącznik, Daniel Cury Ribeiro, G David Baxter

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. E-learning in health professions education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  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

3 authors.

Aleksandra K MącznikCentre for Health, Activity, and Rehabilitation Research, School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Otago, New Zealand. alex.macznik@gmail.com.
Daniel Cury RibeiroCentre for Health, Activity, and Rehabilitation Research, School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Otago, New Zealand. daniel.ribeiro@otago.ac.nz.
G David BaxterCentre for Health, Activity, and Rehabilitation Research, School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Otago, New Zealand. david.baxter@otago.ac.nz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of online technologies in health professionals' education, including physiotherapy, has been advocated as effective and well-accepted tools for enhancing student learning. The aim of this study was to critically review the effectiveness, and user perceptions of online technology for physiotherapy teaching and learning.

methodsFollowing databases were systematically searched on the 31(st) of August 2013 for articles describing implementation of online technologies into physiotherapy teaching and learning: ERIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Academic search complete, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, Medline, Embase, and Scopus. No language, design or publishing date restrictions were imposed. Risk of bias was assessed using the 2011 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool checklist (MMAT).

resultsA total of 4133 articles were retrieved; 22 articles met the inclusion criteria and were accepted for final analysis: 15 on the effectiveness of technology, and 14 on users' perceptions. Included studies used three designs: case study (14 articles), controlled trial (3), and randomized controlled trial (5). Studies investigated both pre-registration physiotherapy students (1523) and physiotherapy professionals (171). The quality of studies ranged from 67 to 100 % on the MMAT checklist which can be considered moderate to excellent. More than half of the studies (68 %) received scores greater than 80 %. Studies typically investigated websites and discussion boards. The websites are effective in enhancing practical skills performance, and discussion boards in knowledge acquisition, as well as in development of critical and reflective thinking. Students' perceptions of the use of websites were mostly positive, providing students with entertaining, easy accessible resources. Perceived barriers to the use of websites included difficulties with internet connection, insufficiently interactive material, or personal preference for paper-based materials. Discussion boards were perceived as deepening students' thinking and facilitating reflection, allowing for learning from multiple perspectives, and providing easy communication and support.

conclusionsThe results of this review suggest that online technologies (i.e., websites and discussion boards) have many benefits to offer for physiotherapy teaching and learning; There was minimal evidence of barriers for the use of online technologies, however, addressing the identified ones could enhance adherence to use of online technologies in health professionals' education.

Indexed as

Computer-Assisted InstructionAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansLearningPhysical Therapy SpecialtyProgram EvaluationTeaching

Identifiers

PMID26415677
PMCPMC4587774

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.