Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28780560›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Interprofessional online learning for primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review.

Scott Reeves, Simon Fletcher, Clodagh McLoughlin, Alastair Yim, Kunal D Patel

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Research as a Pathway to Advancing Interprofessional Integration.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Scott ReevesFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St Georges, University London, London, UK.
Simon FletcherFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St Georges, University London, London, UK.
Clodagh McLoughlinResearch & Advocacy, Iheed, Dublin, Ireland.
Alastair YimDepartment of Paediatrics, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Kunal D PatelFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St Georges, University London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis article presents the findings from a scoping review which explored the nature of interprofessional online learning in primary healthcare. The review was informed by the following questions: What is the nature of evidence on online postgraduate education for primary healthcare interprofessional teams? What learning approaches and study methods are used in this context? What is the range of reported outcomes for primary healthcare learners, their organisations and the care they deliver to patients/clients?

settingThe review explored the global literature on interprofessional online learning in primary healthcare settings.

resultsThe review found that the 23 included studies employed a range of different e-learning methods with contrasting course durations, use of theory, participant mix, approaches to accreditation and assessment of learning. Most of the included studies reported outcomes associated with learner reactions and positive changes in participant attitudes/perceptions and improvement in knowledge/skills as a result of engagement in an e-learning course. In contrast, fewer studies reported changes in participant behaviours, changes in organisational practice and improvements to patients/clients.

conclusionsA number of educational, methodological and outcome implications are be offered. E-learning can enhance an education experience, support development, ease time constraints, overcome geographic limitations and can offer greater flexibility. However, it can also contribute to the isolation of learners and its benefits can be negated by technical problems.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceEducation, Medical, ContinuingHealth Services ResearchPrimary Health CareAccreditationAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansLearningProblem-Based LearningQuality of Health Careinterprofessional collaborationInterprofessional education; online learningprimary health carescoping review

Identifiers

PMID28780560
PMCPMC5623444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.