Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35202080›Full record

ReviewPharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Perceptions of Pharmacy Students on the E-Learning Strategies Adopted during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.

Carla Pires

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

1 author.

Carla PiresCBIOS-Universidade Lusófona's Research Center for Biosciences and Health Technologies, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4526-0271

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundE-learning strategies were globally adopted by academies because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The characterization of students' perception of online learning is fundamental to design appropriate models for pharmacy curricula. The study aim was to carry out a systematic review about the perception of pharmacy students on the e-learning strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was followed. PICOS criteria were applied. Five databases were screened: PubMed, Cochrane Library, DOAJ-Directory of Open Access Journals, SciELO-Scientific Electronic Library Online and b-on-Online Library of knowledge (Biblioteca do conhecimento online). KEYWORDS: "pharmacy and (distant or remote or e-learning or online or zoom or education or training or digital) and (COVID or SARS and (student or undergraduate) and (opinion or satisfaction or perception or attitude)".

results23 out of 176 papers were selected (28 duplicated and 125 excluded). Selected papers were classified, as follows: studies exclusively involving pharmacy students (n = 8); studies simultaneously involving pharmacy students and other healthcare students (n = 6); and studies related to the involvement of pharmacy students in specific courses (n = 9).

conclusionsIn general, the perception of pharmacy students on e-learning strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic was positive. However, an expressive proportion of undergraduates reported negative issues about online education, which seems to support the necessity of optimizing e-learning strategies in the future.

Indexed as

COVID-19e-learningonline educationopinionperceptionpharmacy students

Identifiers

PMID35202080
PMCPMC8874398

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.