Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29609596›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2018

Training community healthcare workers on the use of information and communication technologies: a randomised controlled trial of traditional versus blended learning in Malawi, Africa.

Nikolaos Mastellos, Tammy Tran, Kanika Dharmayat, Elizabeth Cecil, Hsin-Yi Lee, Cybele C Peng Wong, Winnie Mkandawire, Emmanuel Ngalande, Joseph Tsung-Shu Wu, Victoria Hardy and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Implementing active surveillance for tuberculosis: A quality improvement project.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Nikolaos MastellosGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, London, W6 8RP, UK. n.mastellos@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4573-3657
Tammy TranGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, London, W6 8RP, UK.
Kanika DharmayatGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, London, W6 8RP, UK.
Elizabeth CecilDr Foster Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Hsin-Yi LeeLuke International, Mzuzu, Malawi.
Cybele C Peng WongGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, London, W6 8RP, UK.
Winnie MkandawireLuke International, Mzuzu, Malawi.
Emmanuel NgalandeDepartment of Information and Communication Technology, Mzuzu University, Mzuzu, Malawi.
Joseph Tsung-Shu WuLuke International, Mzuzu, Malawi.
Victoria HardyDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Baxter Griphin ChiramboFaculty of Health Sciences, Mzuzu University, Mzuzu, Malawi.
John Martin O'DonoghueGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, London, W6 8RP, UK.
Imperial College London · GBMzuzu University · MWPublic Health England · GBUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

7th Framework Programme 305292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the increasing uptake of information and communication technologies (ICT) within healthcare services across developing countries, community healthcare workers (CHWs) have limited knowledge to fully utilise computerised clinical systems and mobile apps. The 'Introduction to Information and Communication Technology and eHealth' course was developed with the aim to provide CHWs in Malawi, Africa, with basic knowledge and computer skills to use digital solutions in healthcare delivery. The course was delivered using a traditional and a blended learning approach.

methodsTwo questionnaires were developed and tested for face validity and reliability in a pilot course with 20 CHWs. Those were designed to measure CHWs' knowledge of and attitudes towards the use of ICT, before and after each course, as well as their satisfaction with each learning approach. Following validation, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the two learning approaches. A total of 40 CHWs were recruited, stratified by position, gender and computer experience, and allocated to the traditional or blended learning group using block randomisation. Participants completed the baseline and follow-up questionnaires before and after each course to assess the impact of each learning approach on their knowledge, attitudes, and satisfaction. Per-item, pre-post and between-group, mean differences for each approach were calculated using paired and unpaired t-tests, respectively. Per-item, between-group, satisfaction scores were compared using unpaired t-tests.

resultsScores across all scales improved after attending the traditional and blended learning courses. Self-rated ICT knowledge was significantly improved in both groups with significant differences between groups in seven domains. However, actual ICT knowledge scores were similar across groups. There were no significant differences between groups in attitudinal gains. Satisfaction with the course was generally high in both groups. However, participants in the blended learning group found it more difficult to follow the content of the course.

conclusionsThis study shows that there is no difference between blended and traditional learning in the acquisition of actual ICT knowledge among community healthcare workers in developing countries. Given the human resource constraints in remote resource-poor areas, the blended learning approach may present an advantageous alternative to traditional learning.

Indexed as

Information TechnologySurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAttitude to ComputersCell PhoneCommunity Health WorkersComputers, HandheldFemaleHumansMalawiMaleMedical InformaticsMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsTelemedicineBlended learningCommunity healthcare workersDeveloping countrieseHealthInformation and communication technologiesmLearningTraditional learning

Identifiers

PMID29609596
PMCPMC5879741
OpenAlexW2803966738

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.