Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34287206›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2021

Digital Health Training Programs for Medical Students: Scoping Review.

Lorainne Tudor Car, Bhone Myint Kyaw, Rishi S Nannan Panday, Rianne van der Kleij, Niels Chavannes, Azeem Majeed, Josip Car

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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

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

  1. Digital training for building resilience: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  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. 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

7 authors.

Lorainne Tudor Car *Family Medicine and Primary Care, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8414-7664
Bhone Myint Kyaw *Centre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1750-0330
Rishi S Nannan PandayCentre for Population Health Sciences, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4582-8130
Rianne van der KleijDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8638-4978
Niels ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8607-9199
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2357-9858
Josip CarDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8969-371X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical schools worldwide are accelerating the introduction of digital health courses into their curricula. The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to this swift and widespread transition to digital health and education. However, the need for digital health competencies goes beyond the COVID-19 pandemic because they are becoming essential for the delivery of effective, efficient, and safe care.

objectiveThis review aims to collate and analyze studies evaluating digital health education for medical students to inform the development of future courses and identify areas where curricula may need to be strengthened.

methodsWe carried out a scoping review by following the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We searched 6 major bibliographic databases and gray literature sources for articles published between January 2000 and November 2019. Two authors independently screened the retrieved citations and extracted the data from the included studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussions between the authors. The findings were analyzed using thematic analysis and presented narratively.

resultsA total of 34 studies focusing on different digital courses were included in this review. Most of the studies (22/34, 65%) were published between 2010 and 2019 and originated in the United States (20/34, 59%). The reported digital health courses were mostly elective (20/34, 59%), were integrated into the existing curriculum (24/34, 71%), and focused mainly on medical informatics (17/34, 50%). Most of the courses targeted medical students from the first to third year (17/34, 50%), and the duration of the courses ranged from 1 hour to 3 academic years. Most of the studies (22/34, 65%) reported the use of blended education. A few of the studies (6/34, 18%) delivered courses entirely digitally by using online modules, offline learning, massive open online courses, and virtual patient simulations. The reported courses used various assessment approaches such as paper-based assessments, in-person observations, and online assessments. Most of the studies (30/34, 88%) evaluated courses mostly by using an uncontrolled before-and-after design and generally reported improvements in students' learning outcomes.

conclusionsDigital health courses reported in literature are mostly elective, focus on a single area of digital health, and lack robust evaluation. They have diverse delivery, development, and assessment approaches. There is an urgent need for high-quality studies that evaluate digital health education.

Indexed as

computer literacydigital healtheducationeHealthelectronic health recordsmedical studentsscoping review

Identifiers

PMID34287206
PMCPMC8339984

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.