Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37930967›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

A scoping review on technology applications in agricultural extension.

Zhihong Xu, Anjorin Ezekiel Adeyemi, Emily Catalan, Shuai Ma, Ashlynn Kogut, Cristina Guzman

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Zhihong XuDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4769-5597
Anjorin Ezekiel AdeyemiDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4981-8714
Emily CatalanDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Shuai MaDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Ashlynn KogutDepartment of Teaching, Learning, and Culture, Texas A&M University College, Station, Texas, United States of America.
Cristina GuzmanDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communications, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3570-6658

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agricultural extension plays a crucial role in disseminating knowledge, empowering farmers, and advancing agricultural development. The effectiveness of these roles can be greatly improved by integrating technology. These technologies, often grouped into two categories-agricultural technology and educational technology-work together to yield the best outcomes. While several studies have been conducted using technologies in agricultural extension programs, no previous reviews have solely examined the impact of these technologies in agricultural extension, and this leaves a significant knowledge gap especially for professionals in this field. For this scoping review, we searched the five most relevant, reliable, and comprehensive databases (CAB Abstracts (Ovid), AGRICOLA (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), Education Source (EBSCO), and Web of Science Core Collection) for articles focused on the use of technology for training farmers in agricultural extension settings. Fifty-four studies published between 2000 and 2022 on the use of technology in agricultural extension programs were included in this review. Our findings show that: (1) most studies were conducted in the last seven years (2016-2022) in the field of agronomy, with India being the most frequent country and Africa being the most notable region for the studies; (2) the quantitative research method was the most employed, while most of the included studies used more than one data collection approach; (3) multimedia was the most widely used educational technology, while most of the studies combined more than one agricultural technology such as pest and disease control, crop cultivation and harvesting practices; (4) the impacts of technology in agricultural extension were mostly mixed, while only the educational technology type had a statistically significant effect or impact of the intervention outcome. From an analysis of the results, we identified potential limitations in included studies' methodology and reporting that should be considered in the future like the need to further analyze the specific interactions between the two technology types and their impacts of some aspects of agricultural extension. We also looked at the characteristics of interventions, the impact of technology on agricultural extension programs, and current and future trends. We emphasized the gaps in the literature that need to be addressed.

Indexed as

AgricultureTechnologyAfricaEducational TechnologyIndia

Identifiers

PMID37930967
PMCPMC10627468

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.