Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31579016›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019

Effects of E-Learning in a Continuing Education Context on Nursing Care: Systematic Review of Systematic Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Studies Reviews.

Geneviève Rouleau, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, José Côté, Julie Payne-Gagnon, Emilie Hudson, Carl-Ardy Dubois, Julien Bouix-Picasso

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 75 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Geneviève RouleauFaculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1093-6577
Marie-Pierre GagnonFaculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0782-5457
José CôtéUniversity of Montreal Hospital Research Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0617-2861
Julie Payne-GagnonFaculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3116-4978
Emilie HudsonSchool of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7591-1034
Carl-Ardy DuboisPublic Health Research Institute, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7663-4796
Julien Bouix-PicassoFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5399-6057

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundE-learning is rapidly growing as an alternative way of delivering education in nursing. Two contexts regarding the use of e-learning in nursing are discussed in the literature: (1) education among nursing students and (2) nurses' continuing education within a life-long learning perspective. A systematic review of systematic reviews on e-learning for nursing and health professional students in an academic context has been published previously; however, no such review exists regarding e-learning for registered nurses in a continuing education context.

objectiveWe aimed to systematically summarize the qualitative and quantitative evidence regarding the effects of e-learning on nursing care among nurses in a continuing education context.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of systematic qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-studies reviews, searching within four bibliographic databases. The eligibility criteria were formulated using the population, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) format. The included population was registered nurses. E-learning interventions were included and compared with face-to-face and any other e-learning interventions, as well as blended learning. The outcomes of interest were derived from two models: nursing-sensitive indicators from the Nursing Care Performance Framework (eg, teaching and collaboration) and the levels of evaluation from the Kirkpatrick model (ie, reaction, learning, behavior, and results).

resultsWe identified a total of 12,906 records. We retrieved 222 full-text papers for detailed evaluation, from which 22 systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2018 met the eligibility criteria. The effects of e-learning on nursing care were grouped under Kirkpatrick's levels of evaluation: (1) nurse reactions to e-learning, (2) nurse learning, (3) behavior, and (4) results. Level 2, nurse learning, was divided into three subthemes: knowledge, skills, attitude and self-efficacy. Level 4, results, was divided into patient outcomes and costs. Most of the outcomes were reported in a positive way. For instance, nurses were satisfied with the use of e-learning and they improved their knowledge. The most common topics covered by the e-learning interventions were medication calculation, preparation, and administration.

conclusionsThe effects of e-learning are mainly reported in terms of nurse reactions, knowledge, and skills (ie, the first two levels of the Kirkpatrick model). The effectiveness of e-learning interventions for nurses in a continuing education context remains unknown regarding how the learning can be transferred to change practice and affect patient outcomes. Further scientific, methodological, theoretical, and practice-based breakthroughs are needed in the fast-growing field of e-learning in nursing education, especially in a life-learning perspective.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42016050714; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=50714.

Indexed as

InternetComputer-Assisted InstructionEducation, ContinuingEducation, NursingHumansTelemedicinecontinuing educatione-learningnursesnursing caresystematic review of systematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID31579016
PMCPMC6777280

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.