Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30950805›Full record

ReviewJMIR medical education2019

How We Evaluate Postgraduate Medical E-Learning: Systematic Review.

Robert de Leeuw, Anneloes de Soet, Sabine van der Horst, Kieran Walsh, Michiel Westerman, Fedde Scheele

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Resident-as-Teacher: Can It Be Done With an E-Learning Module?Journal of graduate medical education · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Development and Implementation of Situational Judgment Tests as an Evaluation Method for Training Oncology Physicians: Application in the KOKON-KTO Training.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. High User Acceptance of a Retina e-Learning App in Times of Increasing Digitalization of Medical Training for Ophthalmologists.Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Robert de LeeuwAthena Institute for Trans-Disciplinary Research, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9344-7754
Anneloes de SoetAmsterdam University Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3225-0990
Sabine van der HorstAmsterdam University Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2031-1343
Kieran WalshBMJ Learning, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1268-4676
Michiel WestermanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Franciscus Gasthuis en Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0008-7375
Fedde ScheeleAthena Institute for Trans-Disciplinary Research, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9593-257X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic learning (e-learning) in postgraduate medical education has seen a rapid evolution; however, we tend to evaluate it only on its primary outcome or learning aim, whereas its effectiveness also depends on its instructional design. We believe it is important to have an overview of all the methods currently used to evaluate e-learning design so that the preferred method may be identified and the next steps needed to continue to evaluate postgraduate medical e-learning may be outlined.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify and compare the outcomes and methods used to evaluate postgraduate medical e-learning.

methodsWe performed a systematic literature review using the Web of Science, PubMed, Education Resources Information Center, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Studies that used postgraduates as participants and evaluated any form of e-learning were included. Studies without any evaluation outcome (eg, just a description of e-learning) were excluded.

resultsThe initial search identified 5973 articles, of which we used 418 for our analysis. The types of studies were trials, prospective cohorts, case reports, and reviews. The primary outcomes of the included studies were knowledge, skills, and attitude. A total of 12 instruments were used to evaluate a specific primary outcome, such as laparoscopic skills or stress related to training. The secondary outcomes mainly evaluated satisfaction, motivation, efficiency, and usefulness. We found 13 e-learning design methods across 19 studies (4% 19/418). The methods evaluated usability, motivational characteristics, and the use of learning styles or were based on instructional design theories, such as Gagne's instructional design, the Heidelberg inventory, Kern's curriculum development steps, and a scale based on the cognitive load theory. Finally, 2 instruments attempted to evaluate several aspects of a design, based on the experience of creating e-learning.

conclusionsEvaluating the effect of e-learning design is complicated. Given the diversity of e-learning methods, there are many ways to carry out such an evaluation, and probably, many ways to do so correctly. However, the current literature shows us that we have yet to reach any form of consensus about which indicators to evaluate. There is a great need for an evaluation tool that is properly constructed, validated, and tested. This could be a more homogeneous way to compare the effects of e-learning and for the authors of e-learning to continue to improve their product.

Indexed as

distance educationlearningprofessional education

Identifiers

PMID30950805
PMCPMC6473211

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.