Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30801252›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019

Online Digital Education for Postregistration Training of Medical Doctors: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

Pradeep Paul George, Olena Zhabenko, Bhone Myint Kyaw, Panagiotis Antoniou, Pawel Posadzki, Nakul Saxena, Monika Semwal, Lorainne Tudor Car, Nabil Zary, Craig Lockwood and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 35 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Pradeep Paul GeorgeHealth Services and Outcomes Research, National Healthcare Group, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-4743-1425
Olena ZhabenkoCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-7986-2970
Bhone Myint KyawFamily Medicine and Primary Care, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-1750-0330
Panagiotis AntoniouLaboratory of Medical Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloníki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-2650-9529
Pawel PosadzkiCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5153-3654
Nakul SaxenaOphthalmology Team, Novartis, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-6717-4975
Monika SemwalCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-7220-1280
Lorainne Tudor CarFamily Medicine and Primary Care, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8414-7664
Nabil ZaryMedical Education Research and Scholarship Unit, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8999-6999
Craig LockwoodJoanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3722-676X
Josip CarCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8969-371X
Nanyang Technological University · SGAristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRNovartis (Singapore) · SGThe University of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, online and local area network-based (LAN) digital education (ODE) has grown in popularity. Blended learning is used by ODE along with traditional learning. Studies have shown the increasing potential of these technologies in training medical doctors; however, the evidence for its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is unclear.

objectiveThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of online and LAN-based ODE in improving practicing medical doctors' knowledge, skills, attitude, satisfaction (primary outcomes), practice or behavior change, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness (secondary outcomes).

methodsWe searched seven electronic databased for randomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized trials, and quasi-randomized trials from January 1990 to March 2017. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We have presented the findings narratively. We mainly compared ODE with self-directed/face-to-face learning and blended learning with self-directed/face-to-face learning.

resultsA total of 93 studies (N=16,895) were included, of which 76 compared ODE (including blended) and self-directed/face-to-face learning. Overall, the effect of ODE (including blended) on postintervention knowledge, skills, attitude, satisfaction, practice or behavior change, and patient outcomes was inconsistent and ranged mostly from no difference between the groups to higher postintervention score in the intervention group (small to large effect size, very low to low quality evidence). Twenty-one studies reported higher knowledge scores (small to large effect size and very low quality) for the intervention, while 20 studies reported no difference in knowledge between the groups. Seven studies reported higher skill score in the intervention (large effect size and low quality), while 13 studies reported no difference in the skill scores between the groups. One study reported a higher attitude score for the intervention (very low quality), while four studies reported no difference in the attitude score between the groups. Four studies reported higher postintervention physician satisfaction with the intervention (large effect size and low quality), while six studies reported no difference in satisfaction between the groups. Eight studies reported higher postintervention practice or behavior change for the ODE group (small to moderate effect size and low quality), while five studies reported no difference in practice or behavior change between the groups. One study reported higher improvement in patient outcome, while three others reported no difference in patient outcome between the groups. None of the included studies reported any unintended/adverse effects or cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

conclusionsEmpiric evidence showed that ODE and blended learning may be equivalent to self-directed/face-to-face learning for training practicing physicians. Few other studies demonstrated that ODE and blended learning may significantly improve learning outcomes compared to self-directed/face-to-face learning. The quality of the evidence in these studies was found to be very low for knowledge. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceEducation, MedicalHumansLearningPhysicianseffectivenessinternetmedical educationrandomized controlled trialssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30801252
PMCPMC6410118
OpenAlexW2913682482

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.