Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32228560›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2020

A systematic review of the factors - enablers and barriers - affecting e-learning in health sciences education.

Krishna Regmi, Linda Jones

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 213 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
213citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
83.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

213 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 716 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. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

153 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Krishna RegmiFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Institute for Health Research, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, LU2 8LE, UK. Krishna.r.regmi@gmail.com.
Linda JonesCentre for Medical Education, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, The Mackenzie Building, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee, DD2 4BF, UK.
University of Bedfordshire · GBUniversity of Dundee · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, much attention has been given to e-learning in higher education as it provides better access to learning resources online, utilising technology - regardless of learners' geographical locations and timescale - to enhance learning. It has now become part of the mainstream in education in the health sciences, including medical, dental, public health, nursing, and other allied health professionals. Despite growing evidence claiming that e-learning is as effective as traditional means of learning, there is very limited evidence available about what works, and when and how e-learning enhances teaching and learning. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise the factors - enablers and barriers - affecting e-learning in health sciences education (el-HSE) that have been reported in the medical literature.

methodsA systemic review of articles published on e-learning in health sciences education (el-HSE) was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied & Complementary Medicine, DH-DATA, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Global Health, from 1980 through 2019, using 'Textword' and 'Thesaurus' search terms. All original articles fulfilling the following criteria were included: (1) e-learning was implemented in health sciences education, and (2) the investigation of the factors - enablers and barriers - about el-HSE related to learning performance or outcomes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, both relevant published and unpublished papers were searched. Data were extracted and quality appraised using QualSyst tools, and synthesised performing thematic analysis.

resultsOut of 985 records identified, a total of 162 citations were screened, of which 57 were found to be of relevance to this study. The primary evidence base comprises 24 papers, with two broad categories identified, enablers and barriers, under eight separate themes: facilitate learning; learning in practice; systematic approach to learning; integration of e-learning into curricula; poor motivation and expectation; resource-intensive; not suitable for all disciplines or contents, and lack of IT skills.

conclusionsThis study has identified the factors which impact on e-learning: interaction and collaboration between learners and facilitators; considering learners' motivation and expectations; utilising user-friendly technology; and putting learners at the centre of pedagogy. There is significant scope for better understanding of the issues related to enablers and facilitators associated with e-learning, and developing appropriate policies and initiatives to establish when, how and where they fit best, creating a broader framework for making e-learning effective.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationEducation, DistanceInternetHealth OccupationsHumansBarriersE-learningEnablersHealth sciencesLifelong learningWidening participation

Identifiers

PMID32228560
PMCPMC7106784
OpenAlexW3016518030

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.