ArticleMedical education online2024
Facilitators and barriers to online group work in higher education within health sciences - a scoping review.
Article in Medical education online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using non-linear slide decks to administer individualized problem-based learning assessments within pharmacology education.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Experiences with online group work among master's students in health sciences: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn health education, group work is essential to prepare students for working in health care and medical teams. Following the widespread adoption of online teaching, group work increasingly takes place in online environments. Although successful group work can provide good learning outcomes, it is unclear what facilitates or hinders online group work in health science education, and to what extent this topic has been addressed. Thus, this scoping review aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers to online group work in higher health education, provide an overview of the scientific literature related to the topic, and identify knowledge gaps in the research.
methodsThis scoping review was guided by the methodological framework described by Arksey and O'Malley, and reporting is in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR). Eight online databases were searched for scientific articles published between 2012 and 2022. At least two researchers independently screened records and full-text articles and charted data including article characteristics and key information related to the research question. Findings were categorized and summarized based on the Community of Inquiry Framework.
resultsAfter screening 3671 records and 466 full-text articles, 39 articles met the inclusion criteria. The review revealed smaller group size, consistency in group composition and joint responsibility to be facilitators. Challenges with group communication, scheduling synchronous meetings and technical issues were identified as barriers. Our findings supported the importance of all three elements of the Community of Inquiry Framework: social, cognitive, and teaching presence.
conclusionThis review provides an overview of facilitators and barriers to online group work in health science education. However, there is a need for further investigation of these factors and studies addressing this topic from the teachers' perspective.
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.