Dataset Information

Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project.

ABSTRACT: Objectives:The Medical Library Association (MLA) Systematic Review Project aims to conduct systematic reviews to identify the state of knowledge and research gaps for fifteen top-ranked questions in the profession. In 2013, fifteen volunteer-driven teams were recruited to conduct the systematic reviews. The authors investigated the experiences of participants in this large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to answering priority research questions and fostering professional growth among health sciences librarians. Methods:A program evaluation was conducted by inviting MLA Systematic Review Project team members to complete an eleven-item online survey. Multiple-choice and short-answer questions elicited experiences about outputs, successes and challenges, lessons learned, and future directions. Participants were recruited by email, and responses were collected over a two-week period beginning at the end of January 2016. Results:Eighty (8 team leaders, 72 team members) of 198 potential respondents completed the survey. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that the MLA Systematic Review Project should be repeated in the future and were interested in participating in another systematic review. Team outputs included journal articles, conference presentations or posters, and sharing via social media. Thematic analysis of the short-answer questions yielded five broad themes: learning and experience, interpersonal (networking), teamwork, outcomes, and barriers. Discussion:A large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to performing systematic reviews shows promise as a model for answering key questions in the profession and demonstrates the value of experiential learning for acquiring synthesis review skills and knowledge. Our project evaluation provides recommendations to optimize this approach.

SUBMITTER: Boden C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6013139 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project.

Boden Catherine C Ascher Marie T MT Eldredge Jonathan D JD

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20180701 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>The Medical Library Association (MLA) Systematic Review Project aims to conduct systematic reviews to identify the state of knowledge and research gaps for fifteen top-ranked questions in the profession. In 2013, fifteen volunteer-driven teams were recruited to conduct the systematic reviews. The authors investigated the experiences of participants in this large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to answering priority research questions and fostering professional growth among he ...[more]

PMID: 29962906

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceConcerns exist about the current quality of undergraduate medical education and its effect on students' well-being.ObjectiveTo identify best practices for undergraduate medical education learning environment interventions that are associated with improved emotional well-being of students.Data sourcesLearning environment interventions were identified by searching the biomedical electronic databases Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ERIC from database inception dates to October 2016. Studies examined any intervention designed to promote medical students' emotional well-being in the setting of a US academic medical school, with an outcome defined as students' reports of well-being as assessed by surveys, semistructured interviews, or other quantitative methods.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. Data were extracted into tables to summarize results. Study quality was assessed by the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERQSI), which has a possible range of 5 to 18; higher scores indicate higher design and methods quality and a score of 14 or higher indicates a high-quality study.FindingsTwenty-eight articles including at least 8224 participants met eligibility criteria. Study designs included single-group cross-sectional or posttest only (n = 10), single-group pretest/posttest (n = 2), nonrandomized 2-group (n = 13), and randomized clinical trial (n = 3); 89.2% were conducted at a single site, and the mean MERSQI score for all studies was 10.3 (SD, 2.11; range, 5-13). Studies encompassed a variety of interventions, including those focused on pass/fail grading systems (n = 3; mean MERSQI score, 12.0), mental health programs (n = 4; mean MERSQI score, 11.9), mind-body skills programs (n = 7; mean MERSQI score, 11.3), curriculum structure (n = 3; mean MERSQI score, 9.5), multicomponent program reform (n = 5; mean MERSQI score, 9.4), wellness programs (n = 4; mean MERSQI score, 9.0), and advising/mentoring programs (n = 3; mean MERSQI score, 8.2).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, limited evidence suggested that some specific learning environment interventions were associated with improved emotional well-being among medical students. However, the overall quality of the evidence was low, highlighting the need for high-quality medical education research.

Project description:In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), e-learning for medical education may alleviate the burden of severe health worker shortages and deliver affordable access to high quality medical education. However, diverse challenges in infrastructure and adoption are encountered when implementing e-learning within medical education in particular. Understanding what constitutes successful e-learning is an important first step for determining its effectiveness. The objective of this study was to systematically review e-learning interventions for medical education in LMICs, focusing on their evaluation and assessment methods. Nine databases were searched for publications from January 2007 to June 2017. We included 52 studies with a total of 12,294 participants. Most e-learning interventions were pilot studies (73%), which mainly employed summative assessments of study participants (83%) and evaluated the e-learning intervention with questionnaires (45%). Study designs, evaluation and assessment methods showed considerable variation, as did the study quality, evaluation periods, outcome and effectiveness measures. Included studies mainly utilized subjective measures and custom-built evaluation frameworks, which resulted in both low comparability and poor validity. The majority of studies self-concluded that they had had an effective e-learning intervention, thus indicating potential benefits of e-learning for LMICs. However, MERSQI and NOS ratings revealed the low quality of the studies' evidence for comparability, evaluation instrument validity, study outcomes and participant blinding. Many e-learning interventions were small-scale and conducted as short-termed pilots. More rigorous evaluation methods for e-learning implementations in LMICs are needed to understand the strengths and shortcomings of e-learning for medical education in low-resource contexts. Valid and reliable evaluations are the foundation to guide and improve e-learning interventions, increase their sustainability, alleviate shortages in health care workers and improve the quality of medical care in LMICs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) and related models of medical tele-education are rapidly expanding; however, their effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review examines the effectiveness of ECHO and ECHO-like medical tele-education models of healthcare delivery in terms of improved provider- and patient-related outcomes. METHODS:We searched English-language studies in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from 1 January 2007 to 1 December 2018 as well as bibliography review. Two reviewers independently screened citations for peer-reviewed publications reporting provider- and/or patient-related outcomes of technology-enabled collaborative learning models that satisfied six criteria of the ECHO framework. Reviewers then independently abstracted data, assessed study quality, and rated strength of evidence (SOE) based on Cochrane GRADE criteria. RESULTS:Data from 52 peer-reviewed articles were included. Forty-three reported provider-related outcomes; 15 reported patient-related outcomes. Studies on provider-related outcomes suggested favorable results across three domains: satisfaction, increased knowledge, and increased clinical confidence. However, SOE was low, relying primarily on self-reports and surveys with low response rates. One randomized trial has been conducted. For patient-related outcomes, 11 of 15 studies incorporated a comparison group; none involved randomization. Four studies reported care outcomes, while 11 reported changes in care processes. Evidence suggested effectiveness at improving outcomes for patients with hepatitis C, chronic pain, dementia, and type 2 diabetes. Evidence is generally low-quality, retrospective, non-experimental, and subject to social desirability bias and low survey response rates. DISCUSSION:The number of studies examining ECHO and ECHO-like models of medical tele-education has been modest compared with the scope and scale of implementation throughout the USA and internationally. Given the potential of ECHO to broaden access to healthcare in rural, remote, and underserved communities, more studies are needed to evaluate effectiveness. This need for evidence follows similar patterns to other service delivery models in the literature.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic learning (e-learning) in postgraduate medical education has seen a rapid evolution; however, we tend to evaluate it only on its primary outcome or learning aim, whereas its effectiveness also depends on its instructional design. We believe it is important to have an overview of all the methods currently used to evaluate e-learning design so that the preferred method may be identified and the next steps needed to continue to evaluate postgraduate medical e-learning may be outlined.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify and compare the outcomes and methods used to evaluate postgraduate medical e-learning.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review using the Web of Science, PubMed, Education Resources Information Center, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Studies that used postgraduates as participants and evaluated any form of e-learning were included. Studies without any evaluation outcome (eg, just a description of e-learning) were excluded.ResultsThe initial search identified 5973 articles, of which we used 418 for our analysis. The types of studies were trials, prospective cohorts, case reports, and reviews. The primary outcomes of the included studies were knowledge, skills, and attitude. A total of 12 instruments were used to evaluate a specific primary outcome, such as laparoscopic skills or stress related to training. The secondary outcomes mainly evaluated satisfaction, motivation, efficiency, and usefulness. We found 13 e-learning design methods across 19 studies (4% 19/418). The methods evaluated usability, motivational characteristics, and the use of learning styles or were based on instructional design theories, such as Gagne's instructional design, the Heidelberg inventory, Kern's curriculum development steps, and a scale based on the cognitive load theory. Finally, 2 instruments attempted to evaluate several aspects of a design, based on the experience of creating e-learning.ConclusionsEvaluating the effect of e-learning design is complicated. Given the diversity of e-learning methods, there are many ways to carry out such an evaluation, and probably, many ways to do so correctly. However, the current literature shows us that we have yet to reach any form of consensus about which indicators to evaluate. There is a great need for an evaluation tool that is properly constructed, validated, and tested. This could be a more homogeneous way to compare the effects of e-learning and for the authors of e-learning to continue to improve their product.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) programs are increasingly seen as the way in which education for health care professionals can be transformed, giving access to effective ongoing learning and training even where time or geographical barriers exist. Given the increasing emphasis on this mode of educational support for health care practitioners, it is vital that we can effectively evaluate and measure impact to ensure that TEL programs are effective and fit for purpose. This paper examines the current evidence base for the first time, in relation to the evaluation of TEL programs for health care professionals. OBJECTIVE:We conducted a systematic review of the current literature relating to the evaluation of TEL programs for health care professionals and critically appraised the quality of the studies. METHODS:This review employed specific search criteria to identify research studies that included evaluation of TEL for health care professionals. The databases searched included Medline Ovid, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus Advanced, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, ZETOC, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Explore Digital Library, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Education Resources Information Center between January 2006 and January 2017. An additional hand search for relevant articles from reference lists was undertaken. Each of the studies identified was critically appraised for quality using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. This approach produced a percentage total score for each study across specified categories. A proportion of the studies were independently assessed by an additional two reviewers. RESULTS:The review identified 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The studies included scored totals across eight categories within a range of 37%-95% and an average score of 68%. Studies that measured TEL using learner satisfaction surveys, or combined pretest and posttest knowledge score testing with learner satisfaction surveys, were found to be the most common types of TEL evaluations evident in the literature. The studies reviewed had low scores across reporting on ethical matters, design, and data collection categories. CONCLUSIONS:There continues to be a need to develop effective and standard TEL evaluation tools, and good quality studies that describe effective evaluation of TEL education for health care professionals. Studies often fail to provide sufficient detail to support transferability or direct future TEL health care education programs.

Project description:BackgroundBlended learning, which combines face-to-face learning and e-learning, has grown rapidly to be commonly used in education. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this learning approach has not been completely quantitatively synthesized and evaluated using knowledge outcomes in health education.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of blended learning compared to that of traditional learning in health education.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of blended learning in health education in MEDLINE from January 1990 to July 2019. We independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and compared overall blended learning versus traditional learning, offline blended learning versus traditional learning, online blended learning versus traditional learning, digital blended learning versus traditional learning, computer-aided instruction blended learning versus traditional learning, and virtual patient blended learning versus traditional learning. All pooled analyses were based on random-effect models, and the I2 statistic was used to quantify heterogeneity across studies.ResultsA total of 56 studies (N=9943 participants) assessing several types of learning support in blended learning met our inclusion criteria; 3 studies investigated offline support, 7 studies investigated digital support, 34 studies investigated online support, 8 studies investigated computer-assisted instruction support, and 5 studies used virtual patient support for blended learning. The pooled analysis comparing all blended learning to traditional learning showed significantly better knowledge outcomes for blended learning (standardized mean difference 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28, I2=94.3%). Similar results were observed for online (standardized mean difference 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.86, I2=94.9%), computer-assisted instruction (standardized mean difference 1.13, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.79, I2=78.0%), and virtual patient (standardized mean difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.06, I2=78.4%) learning support, but results for offline learning support (standardized mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.79, I2=87.9%) and digital learning support (standardized mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.52, I2=93.4%) were not significant.ConclusionsFrom this review, blended learning demonstrated consistently better effects on knowledge outcomes when compared with traditional learning in health education. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore the utility of different design variants of blended learning.

Dataset Information

Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project.

Publications

Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets