Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33610051›Full record

ReviewNurse education today2021

What knowledge is available on massive open online courses in nursing and academic healthcare sciences education? A rapid review.

Jessica Longhini, Beatrice De Colle, Giaocmo Rossettini, Alvisa Palese

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nurse education today, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

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

4 authors.

Jessica LonghiniDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Beatrice De ColleDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Giaocmo RossettiniDepartment of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genoa, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy; School of Physiotherapy, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Alvisa PaleseDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. Electronic address: alvisa.palese@uniud.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the recent challenges due to the Coronavirus 2019 outbreak, distance learning has been largely introduced in healthcare sciences curricula, and universities have been called upon to share learning opportunities with each other to ensure continuity of education and delivery of new graduates to the health system. However, decisions about its introduction should be supported by up-to-date evidence capable of providing an overview of available knowledge.

objectivesTo map the (a) state of research on massive open online courses in undergraduate and postgraduate health sciences education, (b) evaluation methods and tools used to measure learning outcomes, and (c) factors increasing their effectiveness as documented to date.

designA rapid review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines.

methodsPubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane, Scopus, PsycInfo and Medline (via Ovid) were searched. Primary studies reporting one or more massive open online course (1) devoted to undergraduate and/or postgraduate students in nursing and healthcare sciences (2), written in English (3) with abstract available (4) and published up to February 18th, 2020 were all included. After having assessed the need for a review and the topic itself (a), the literature search was performed (b), studies were screened and selected (c), data was extracted (d), and the findings were summarised (e).

resultsThirty-six studies emerged with mainly an explorative/descriptive or case study design. The courses have been developed mainly by universities alone or in collaboration with institutions mainly in US, Sweden and the UK. Their delivery has been performed at multi-national levels, mainly in English, and with a number of participants ranging from 45 to >23,000. The duration spanned from two weeks to six months on clinical topics (e.g., emergency medicine) to methods (e.g., statistics). The target audience has been mainly mixed, including students, healthcare professionals, and lay citizens. Evaluation methods and tools have been described in 28 studies, and multiple-choice questions were most frequently adopted. Factors affecting the effectiveness of massive open online courses have been identified analysing the courses themselves and the participants.

conclusionMassive open online courses have recently started to be studied in healthcare sciences: these can be useful to educate students, mainly as elective courses, and to educate a massive audience, thus embodying the third mission of the university. The complexity of factors increasing effectiveness suggests the need for a multidisciplinary approach both in their design and implementation.

Indexed as

Academic SuccessEducation, DistanceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeStudents, Health OccupationsStudents, NursingUniversitiesCurriculumEducation, Nursing, BaccalaureateHumansEducationHealthcareMassive online open courseMOOCNursingOnline coursesOnline educationStudent

Identifiers

PMID33610051
PMCPMC9756889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.