ReviewPloS one2023
Undergraduate e-learning programmes in health professions: An integrative review of evaluation standards in low- and middle-income countries.
Review in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBefore the Coronavirus COVID-19, universities offered blended learning as a mode of study. However, with the closure of all educational institutions, after the pandemic, most of these institutions were required to transition to e-learning to support continuous student learning. This transition was challenging to most institutions, as there were no standards to ensure the quality of e-learning. During this literature review, the researcher aimed to explore relevant literature and provide insight into the standards for undergraduate e-learning programmes in the health professions.
designAn integrative review of literature. DATA SOURCES: Online databases MEDLINE, CINAHL with full text, Academic search ultimate, APA PsycInfo, ERIC, Health Source: Nursing/academic edition, CAB abstracts, Africa-wide information, Sociology source ultimate, and Communication and Mass media complete were searched. MATERIALS AND
methodsStudies pertaining to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) on standards in evaluating undergraduate e-learning programmes in health professions, published between January 2010 to June 2022, were considered. A two-step process was followed involving three reviewers and guided by an inclusion criteria focused on the evaluation of undergraduate e-learning programmes in the health professions. The initial hit produced 610 articles altogether, and eight articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Data was then extracted and analysed, and key themes were identified.
resultsEight Key themes related to LMIC standards emerged from the eight selected articles: curriculum planning, proficiency of educators, learner proficiency and attitude, infrastructure for learning, support and evaluation.
conclusionIn this review, we synthesised standards that have been used for evaluating undergraduate e-learning programmes in health professions in LMICs. A gap in standards related to clinical teaching and learning in undergraduate e-learning programmes in the health professions was evident from all the included articles. The identification of the eight unique LMIC standards in this review could contribute to guiding towards contextually appropriate quality e-learning programmes in the health professions.
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.