ArticleBMC medical education2020
Factors influencing the retention of participants in online cancer screening training programs in India.
Article 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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Enhancing cancer care through a knowledge-sharing model: a systematic review of Project ECHOBMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Project ECHO for Cancer Care: a Scoping Review of Provider Outcome Evaluations.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Digital education for health professionals in India: a scoping review of the research.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- On the advantages and disadvantages of virtual continuing medical education: a scoping review.Canadian medical education journal · 2023Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on an online cancer screening training programme for healthcare providers in the public sector in India: learnings from a hub and spoke model perspective.Ecancermedicalscience · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOnline courses have broken the boundaries in imparting knowledge. While in western countries e-learning in medical education is well accepted, it is still an upcoming field in low- and middle-income countries like India. Attrition is a major threat to online courses world-wide. The objective of this article is to share the experiences in conducting online cancer screening courses, reasons for attrition and ways to improve retention.
methodsOnline training program in preventive oncology for medical professionals is being conducted since 2017, which is 14-week long with weekly one-hour sessions and specific curriculum for healthcare professionals. Since the retention of participants was a major challenge in all the courses, a short online survey was conducted to identify the reason behind quitting the course and suggestions to improve retention. The data was analyzed in November 2019.
resultsAmong 614 enrolments, 26% (159/614) refused to attend the course and only 55% (252/455) completed the course successfully. Among the attendees 52% (238/455) were females, 71% (325/455) were from the public sector and 71% (324/455) were non-specialists. The attrition was high among non-specialists 49% (160/324), male participants 57% (124/217) and public sector doctors 52% (170/325). The main reasons for quitting the course were high workload in the health facilities 75% (52/69) and poor internet connectivity 12% (8/69).
conclusionThe internet connectivity should be strengthened in all the healthcare centers to facilitate e-learning. A dedicated time-slot should be allotted to the providers for e-learning and updating their knowledge in addition to their routine work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.