Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27725076›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action

A partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in South Africa, Sweden, and Uganda.

Minna Kumpu, Salla Atkins, Merrick Zwarenstein, Lungiswa Nkonki, ARCADE consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Minna KumpuDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Global Health (IHCAR), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Salla AtkinsDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Global Health (IHCAR), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Merrick ZwarensteinCentre for Studies in Family Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Lungiswa NkonkiCentre for Health Systems and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa; lnkonki@sun.ac.za.
ARCADE consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNovel research training approaches are needed in global health, particularly in sub-Saharan African universities, to support strengthening of health systems and services. Blended learning (BL), combining face-to-face teaching with computer-based technologies, is also an accessible and flexible education method for teaching global health and related topics. When organised as inter-institutional collaboration, BL also has potential for sharing teaching resources. However, there is insufficient data on the costs of BL in higher education.

objectiveOur goal was to evaluate the total provider costs of BL in teaching health research methods in a three-university collaboration.

designA retrospective evaluation was performed on a BL course on randomised controlled trials, which was led by Stellenbosch University (SU) in South Africa and joined by Swedish and Ugandan universities. For all three universities, the costs of the BL course were evaluated using activity-based costing with an ingredients approach. For SU, the costs of the same course delivered with a classroom learning (CL) approach were also estimated. The learning outcomes of both approaches were explored using course grades as an intermediate outcome measure.

resultsIn this contextually bound pilot evaluation, BL had substantially higher costs than the traditional CL approach in South Africa, even when average per-site or per-student costs were considered. Staff costs were the major cost driver in both approaches, but total staff costs were three times higher for the BL course at SU. This implies that inter-institutional BL can be more time consuming, for example, due to use of new technologies. Explorative findings indicated that there was little difference in students' learning outcomes.

conclusionsThe total provider costs of the inter-institutional BL course were higher than the CL course at SU. Long-term economic evaluations of BL with societal perspective are warranted before conclusions on full costs and consequences of BL in teaching global health topics can be made.

Indexed as

blended learningcost analysiseducationhealth systems researchpublic healthpublic health professionalstudents

Identifiers

PMID27725076
PMCPMC5056980

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.