Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32565611›Full record

ArticleComputers & education2020

Evaluation of e-learning for medical education in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Sandra Barteit, Dorota Guzek, Albrecht Jahn, Till Bärnighausen, Margarida Mendes Jorge, Florian Neuhann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computers & education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Online Outcomes of a Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Course for Multidisciplinary Healthcare Professionals in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Changing Climate, ChangingJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  20. Article

30 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

6 authors.

Sandra BarteitHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Germany.
Dorota GuzekHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Germany.
Albrecht JahnHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Germany.
Till BärnighausenHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Germany.
Margarida Mendes JorgeHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Germany.
Florian NeuhannHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), e-learning for medical education may alleviate the burden of severe health worker shortages and deliver affordable access to high quality medical education. However, diverse challenges in infrastructure and adoption are encountered when implementing e-learning within medical education in particular. Understanding what constitutes successful e-learning is an important first step for determining its effectiveness. The objective of this study was to systematically review e-learning interventions for medical education in LMICs, focusing on their evaluation and assessment methods. Nine databases were searched for publications from January 2007 to June 2017. We included 52 studies with a total of 12,294 participants. Most e-learning interventions were pilot studies (73%), which mainly employed summative assessments of study participants (83%) and evaluated the e-learning intervention with questionnaires (45%). Study designs, evaluation and assessment methods showed considerable variation, as did the study quality, evaluation periods, outcome and effectiveness measures. Included studies mainly utilized subjective measures and custom-built evaluation frameworks, which resulted in both low comparability and poor validity. The majority of studies self-concluded that they had had an effective e-learning intervention, thus indicating potential benefits of e-learning for LMICs. However, MERSQI and NOS ratings revealed the low quality of the studies' evidence for comparability, evaluation instrument validity, study outcomes and participant blinding. Many e-learning interventions were small-scale and conducted as short-termed pilots. More rigorous evaluation methods for e-learning implementations in LMICs are needed to understand the strengths and shortcomings of e-learning for medical education in low-resource contexts. Valid and reliable evaluations are the foundation to guide and improve e-learning interventions, increase their sustainability, alleviate shortages in health care workers and improve the quality of medical care in LMICs.

Indexed as

Country-specific developmentse-learningEvaluation methodologiesEvaluation of CAL systemsMedical educationPost-secondary education

Identifiers

PMID32565611
PMCPMC7291921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.