Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30626565›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

E-Learning for Medical Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and Low-Resource Settings: Viewpoint.

Sandra Barteit, Albrecht Jahn, Sekelani S Banda, Till Bärnighausen, Annel Bowa, Geoffrey Chileshe, Dorota Guzek, Margarida Mendes Jorge, Sigrid Lüders, Gregory Malunga and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Final-year students' perceptions of online integrated primary care learning.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025
    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

11 authors.

Sandra BarteitHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3806-6027
Albrecht JahnHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8181-9795
Sekelani S BandaMinistry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0001-8729-8062
Till BärnighausenHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4182-4212
Annel BowaChainama College of Health Sciences, Lusaka, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0001-5788-7624
Geoffrey ChilesheChainama College of Health Sciences, Lusaka, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0002-7985-2606
Dorota GuzekHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2780-5656
Margarida Mendes JorgeHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4143-1806
Sigrid LüdersSolidarMed, Lusaka, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0003-0734-8547
Gregory MalungaChainama College of Health Sciences, Lusaka, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0001-8779-2917
Florian NeuhannHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5944-1597

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

E-learning has been heralded as a revolutionary force for medical education, especially for low-resource countries still suffering from a dire lack of health care workers. However, despite over two decades of e-learning endeavors and interventions across sub-Saharan Africa and other low- and middle-income countries, e-learning for medical education has not gained momentum and continues to fall short of the anticipated revolution. Many e-learning interventions have been cul-de-sac pilots that have not been scaled up but rather terminated after the pilot phase. This is usually a result of not adopting a system-wide approach, which leads to insufficient scope of training, insufficient technological maintenance and user support, unattainably high expectations, and unrealistic financial planning. Thus, a multitude of e-learning evaluations have failed to provide scientifically sound evidence of the effectiveness of e-learning for medical education in low-resource countries. Instead, it appears that technological development has overwhelmed rather than revolutionized medical education. The question of how to push e-learning into a higher gear in low-resource countries persists. Provision of e-learning as a technology is insufficient. E-learning needs to be vigorously and sustainably integrated into the local educational setting and aligned with national strategies and other national endeavors and interventions. Adhering to a standardized framework for the implementation and evaluation of e-learning endeavors is key, especially to bridge the gap in robust evidence that should also guide e-learning implementations. The primary objective of e-learning for medical education is to strengthen the health system in order to serve the population's health care needs and expectations. Currently, medical e-learning does not measure up to its potential or do justice to medical students in low-resource countries. Technology may help unfold the potential of e-learning, but an all-encompassing change is needed. This can only be achieved through a joint effort that follows a systematic and standardized framework, especially for implementation and evaluation.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaEducation, MedicalHealth PersonnelHealth ResourcesHumansTelemedicineblended learningdeveloping countrieseHealthhealth system strengtheninghealth workerslow-resource countriesmedical educationmedical e-learningmHealthsub-Saharan Africatechnology-enhanced learninguniversal health coverage

Identifiers

PMID30626565
PMCPMC6329426

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.