Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30816847›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019

Influences on the Implementation of Mobile Learning for Medical and Nursing Education: Qualitative Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

Priya Lall, Rebecca Rees, Gloria Chun Yi Law, Gerard Dunleavy, Živa Cotič, Josip Car

Abstract 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 46 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Priya LallSchool of Geography, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5313-4278
Rebecca ReesEvidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Department of Social Science, University College London Institute of Education, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1413-1952
Gloria Chun Yi LawCentre of Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-6531-2863
Gerard DunleavyCentre of Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-8356-3444
Živa CotičFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-5042-5643
Josip CarCentre of Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8969-371X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the past 5 decades, digital education has increasingly been used in health professional education. Mobile learning (mLearning), an emerging form of educational technology using mobile devices, has been used to supplement learning outcomes through enabling conversations, sharing information and knowledge with other learners, and aiding support from peers and instructors regardless of geographic distance.

objectiveThis review aimed to synthesize findings from qualitative or mixed-methods studies to provide insight into factors facilitating or hindering implementation of mLearning strategies for medical and nursing education.

methodsA systematic search was conducted across a range of databases. Studies with the following criteria were selected: examined mLearning in medical and nursing education, employed a mixed-methods or qualitative approach, and published in English after 1994. Findings were synthesized using a framework approach.

resultsA total of 1946 citations were screened, resulting in 47 studies being selected for inclusion. Most studies evaluated pilot mLearning interventions. The synthesis identified views on valued aspects of mobile devices in terms of efficiency and personalization but concerns over vigilance and poor device functionality; emphasis on the social aspects of technology, especially in a clinical setting; the value of interaction learning for clinical practice; mLearning as a process, including learning how to use a device; and the importance of institutional infrastructure and policies.

conclusionsThe portability of mobile devices can enable interactions between learners and educational material, fellow learners, and educators in the health professions. However, devices need to be incorporated institutionally, and learners and educators need additional support to fully comprehend device or app functions. The strategic support of mLearning is likely to require procedural guidance for practice settings and device training and maintenance services on campus.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalEducation, NursingHealth EducationHumansLearningTelemedicinedistance educationmedical educationnursing educationqualitative researchsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30816847
PMCPMC6416537

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.