Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39969988›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Identifying Research Priorities in Digital Education for Health Care: Umbrella Review and Modified Delphi Method Study.

Alison Potter, Chris Munsch, Elaine Watson, Emily Hopkins, Sofia Kitromili, Iain Cameron O'Neill, Judy Larbie, Essi Niittymaki, Catriona Ramsay, Joshua Burke and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. 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

11 authors.

Alison PotterTechnology Enhanced Learning, NHS England, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0952-4105
Chris MunschTechnology Enhanced Learning, NHS England, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3204-2112
Elaine WatsonTechnology Enhanced Learning, NHS England, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1608-2872
Emily HopkinsKnowledge Management Service, NHS England, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7591-493X
Sofia KitromiliTechnology Enhanced Learning, NHS England, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1745-9523
Iain Cameron O'NeillTechnology Enhanced Learning, NHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4128-2985
Judy LarbieTechnology Enhanced Learning, NHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5055-0931
Essi NiittymakiTechnology Enhanced Learning, NHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7101-9823
Catriona RamsayTechnology Enhanced Learning, NHS England, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0799-3984
Joshua BurkeManchester Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4027-747X
Neil RalphTechnology Enhanced Learning, NHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8948-4437

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, the use of digital technology in the education of health care professionals has surged, partly driven by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is still a need for focused research to establish evidence of its effectiveness.

objectiveThis study aimed to define the gaps in the evidence for the efficacy of digital education and to identify priority areas where future research has the potential to contribute to our understanding and use of digital education.

methodsWe used a 2-stage approach to identify research priorities. First, an umbrella review of the recent literature (published between 2020 and 2023) was performed to identify and build on existing work. Second, expert consensus on the priority research questions was obtained using a modified Delphi method.

resultsA total of 8857 potentially relevant papers were identified. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology, we included 217 papers for full review. All papers were either systematic reviews or meta-analyses. A total of 151 research recommendations were extracted from the 217 papers. These were analyzed, recategorized, and consolidated to create a final list of 63 questions. From these, a modified Delphi process with 42 experts was used to produce the top-five rated research priorities: (1) How do we measure the learning transfer from digital education into the clinical setting? (2) How can we optimize the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning to facilitate education and training? (3) What are the methodological requirements for high-quality rigorous studies assessing the outcomes of digital health education? (4) How does the design of digital education interventions (eg, format and modality) in health professionals' education and training curriculum affect learning outcomes? and (5) How should learning outcomes in the field of health professions' digital education be defined and standardized?

conclusionsThis review provides a prioritized list of research gaps in digital education in health care, which will be of use to researchers, educators, education providers, and funding agencies. Additional proposals are discussed regarding the next steps needed to advance this agenda, aiming to promote meaningful and practical research on the use of digital technologies and drive excellence in health care education.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceHealth PersonnelResearchDelphi TechniqueHumansAIartificial intelligenceDelphidigital educationhealth professions educationresearch prioritiesumbrella review

Identifiers

PMID39969988
PMCPMC11888089

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.