Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32667899›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Perceptions of Digital Health Education Among European Medical Students: Mixed Methods Survey.

Felix Machleid, Robert Kaczmarczyk, Doreen Johann, Justinas Balčiūnas, Beatriz Atienza-Carbonell, Finn von Maltzahn, Lina Mosch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 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.

Felix Machleid *Association Européenne des Étudiants en Médecine (EMSA), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6597-4178
Robert KaczmarczykAssociation Européenne des Étudiants en Médecine (EMSA), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8570-1601
Doreen JohannGeography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1973-5042
Justinas BalčiūnasAssociation Européenne des Étudiants en Médecine (EMSA), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0423-9153
Beatriz Atienza-CarbonellAssociation Européenne des Étudiants en Médecine (EMSA), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9286-3676
Finn von MaltzahnAssociation Européenne des Étudiants en Médecine (EMSA), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7122-7489
Lina Mosch *Association Européenne des Étudiants en Médecine (EMSA), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-3154-2745

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health technologies hold promise to enhance patient-related outcomes, to support health care staff by reducing their workload, and to improve the coordination of care. As key users of digital health technologies, health care workers are crucial to enable a meaningful digital transformation of health care. Digital health literacy and digital skills should become prerequisite competencies for health professionals to facilitate the implementation and leverage the potential of digital technologies to improve health.

objectiveWe aimed to assess European medical students' perceived knowledge and opinions toward digital health, the status of digital health implementation in medical education, and the students' most pressing needs.

methodsThe explanatory design of our mixed methods study was based on an online, anonymous, self-administered survey targeted toward European medical students. A linear regression analysis was used to identify the influence of the year of medical studies on the responses. Additional analysis was performed by grouping the responses by the self-evaluated frequency of eHealth technology use. Written responses to four qualitative questions in the survey were analyzed using an inductive approach.

resultsThe survey received a total of 451 responses from 39 European countries, and there were respondents for every year of medical studies. The majority of respondents saw advantages in the use of digital health. While 40.6% (183/451) felt prepared to work in a digitized health care system, more than half (240/451, 53.2%) evaluated their eHealth skills as poor or very poor. Medical students considered lack of education to be the reason for this, with 84.9% (383/451) agreeing or strongly agreeing that more digital health education should be implemented in the medical curriculum. Students demanded introductory and specific eHealth courses covering data management, ethical aspects, legal frameworks, research and entrepreneurial opportunities, role in public health and health systems, communication skills, and practical training. The emphasis lay on tailoring learning to future job requirements and interprofessional education.

conclusionsThis study shows a lack of digital health-related formats in medical education and a perceived lack of digital health literacy among European medical students. Our findings indicate a gap between the willingness of medical students to take an active role by becoming key players in the digital transformation of health care and the education that they receive through their faculties.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEducation, DistanceEducation, MedicalEuropeFemaleHumansMaleStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultcurriculumdigital literacyeHealthhealth workforcemedical educationmedical studentsmixed method

Identifiers

PMID32667899
PMCPMC7455864

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.