These may not be the courses you are seeking: a systematic review of open online courses in health professions education.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Open Online Courses (OOCs) are increasingly presented as a possible solution to the many challenges of higher education. However, there is currently little evidence available to support decisions around the use of OOCs in health professions education. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence describing the features of OOCs in health professions education and to analyse their utility for decision-making using a self-developed framework consisting of point scores around effectiveness, learner experiences, feasibility, pedagogy and economics.Methods
Electronic searches of PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL were made up to April 2019 using keywords related to OOC variants and health professions. We accepted any type of full text English publication with no exclusions made on the basis of study quality. Data were extracted using a custom-developed, a priori critical analysis framework comprising themes relating to effectiveness, economics, pedagogy, acceptability and learner experience.Results
54 articles were included in the review and 46 were of the lowest levels of evidence, and most were offered by institutions based in the United States (n?=?11) and United Kingdom (n?=?6). Most studies provided insufficient course detail to make any confident claims about participant learning, although studies published from 2016 were more likely to include information around course aims and participant evaluation. In terms of the five categories identified for analysis, few studies provided sufficiently robust evidence to be used in formal decision making in undergraduate or postgraduate curricula.Conclusion
This review highlights a poor state of evidence to support or refute claims regarding the effectiveness of OOCs in health professions education. Health professions educators interested in developing courses of this nature should adopt a critical and cautious position regarding their adoption.
SUBMITTER: Rowe M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6744630 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
These may not be the courses you are seeking: a systematic review of open online courses in health professions education.
Rowe Michael M Osadnik Christian R CR Pritchard Shane S Maloney Stephen S
BMC medical education 20190914 1
<h4>Introduction</h4>Open Online Courses (OOCs) are increasingly presented as a possible solution to the many challenges of higher education. However, there is currently little evidence available to support decisions around the use of OOCs in health professions education. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence describing the features of OOCs in health professions education and to analyse their utility for decision-making using a self-developed framework consist ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Digital stories are short videos that combine stand-alone and first-person narratives with multimedia. This systematic review examined the contexts and purposes for using digital storytelling in health professions education (HPE) as well as its impact on health professionals' learning and behaviours.We focused on the results of HPE studies gleaned from a larger systematic review that explored digital storytelling in healthcare and HPE. In December 2016, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ERIC. We included all English-language studies on digital storytelling that reported at least one outcome from Levels 2 (learning) or 3 (behaviour) of The New World Kirkpatrick Model. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data.The comprehensive search (i.e., digital storytelling in healthcare and HPE) resulted in 1486 unique titles/abstracts. Of these, 153 were eligible for full review and 42 pertained to HPE. Sixteen HPE articles were suitable for data extraction; 14 focused on health professionals' learning and two investigated health professionals' learning as well as their behaviour changes. Half represented the undergraduate nursing context. The purposes for using digital storytelling were eclectic. The co-creation of patients' digital stories with health professionals as well as the creation and use of health professionals' own digital stories enhanced learning. Patients' digital stories alone had minimal impact on health professionals' learning.This review highlights the need for high-quality research on the impact of digital storytelling in HPE, especially on health professionals' behaviours.CRD42016050271 .
| S-EPMC6131857 | biostudies-other
Project description:The data presented in this article are based on provides a systematic and organized review of 219 studies regarding using of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in higher education from 2012 to 2017. Consequently, the extant, peer-reviewed literature relating to MOOCs was methodically assessed, as a means of formulating a classification for MOOC-focused scholarly literature. The publication journal, country of origin, researchers, release data, theoretical approach, models, methodology and study participants were all factors used to assess and categorise the MOOC. These data contribute to materials required by readers who are interested in different aspects related to the literature of using Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in higher education. Intention to use, interaction, engagement, motivations and satisfaction were five dynamics assessed in relation to the improvement of MOOCs. Students' academic performance can be influenced by MOOC which has the advantage of facilitating the learning process through offering materials and enabling the share of information.
| S-EPMC6297852 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMassive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have the potential to improve access to quality education for health care workers (HCWs) globally. Although studies have reported on the use of MOOCs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), our understanding of the scope of their utilization or access barriers and facilitators for this cohort is limited. We conducted a scoping review to map published peer-reviewed literature on MOOCs for HCW education in LMICs. We systematically searched four academic databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ERIC) and Google Scholar, and undertook a two-stage screening process. The analysis included studies that reported on MOOCs relevant to HCWs' education accessed by HCWs based in LMICs.ResultsThe search identified 1,317 studies with 39 studies included in the analysis, representing 40 MOOCs accessed in over 90 LMICs. We found that MOOCs covered a wide range of HCWs' including nurses, midwives, physicians, dentists, psychologists, and other workers from the broader health care sector, mainly at a post-graduate level. Dominant topics covered by the MOOCs included infectious diseases and epidemic response, treatment and prevention of non-communicable diseases, communication techniques and patient interaction, as well as research practice. Time contribution and internet connection were recognized barriers to MOOC completion, whilst deadlines, email reminders, graphical design of the MOOC, and blended learning modes facilitated uptake and completion. MOOCs were predominantly taught in English (20%), French (12.5%), Spanish (7.5%) and Portuguese (7.5%). Overall, evaluation outcomes were positive and focused on completion rate, learner gain, and student satisfaction.ConclusionWe conclude that MOOCs can be an adequate tool to support HCWs' education in LMICs and may be particularly suited for supporting knowledge and understanding. Heterogeneous reporting of MOOC characteristics and lack of cohort-specific reporting limits our ability to evaluate MOOCs at a broader scale; we make suggestions on how standardized reporting may offset this problem. Further research should focus on the impact of learning through MOOCs, as well as on the work of HCWs and the apparent lack of courses covering the key causes of diseases in LMICs. This will result in increased understanding of the extent to which MOOCs can be utilized in this context.
| S-EPMC9315291 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is a worldwide shortage of health workers, and this issue requires innovative education solutions. Serious gaming and gamification education have the potential to provide a quality, cost-effective, novel approach that is flexible, portable, and enjoyable and allow interaction with tutors and peers. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of serious gaming/gamification for health professions education compared with traditional learning, other types of digital education, or other serious gaming/gamification interventions in terms of patient outcomes, knowledge, skills, professional attitudes, and satisfaction (primary outcomes) as well as economic outcomes of education and adverse events (secondary outcomes). METHODS:A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Educational Resources Information Centre, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature was conducted from 1990 to August 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently searched, screened, and assessed the study quality and extracted data. A meta-analysis was not deemed appropriate due to the heterogeneity of populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes. Therefore, a narrative synthesis is presented. RESULTS:A total of 27 RCTs and 3 cluster RCTs with 3634 participants were included. Two studies evaluated gamification interventions, and the remaining evaluated serious gaming interventions. One study reported a small statistically significant difference between serious gaming and digital education of primary care physicians in the time to control blood pressure in a subgroup of their patients already taking antihypertensive medications. There was evidence of a moderate-to-large magnitude of effect from five studies evaluating individually delivered interventions for objectively measured knowledge compared with traditional learning. There was also evidence of a small-to-large magnitude of effect from 10 studies for improved skills compared with traditional learning. Two and four studies suggested equivalence between interventions and controls for knowledge and skills, respectively. Evidence suggested that serious gaming was at least as effective as other digital education modalities for these outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether one type of serious gaming/gamification intervention is more effective than any other. There was limited evidence for the effects of serious gaming/gamification on professional attitudes. Serious gaming/gamification may improve satisfaction, but the evidence was limited. Evidence was of low or very low quality for all outcomes. Quality of evidence was downgraded due to the imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS:Serious gaming/gamification appears to be at least as effective as controls, and in many studies, more effective for improving knowledge, skills, and satisfaction. However, the available evidence is mostly of low quality and calls for further rigorous, theory-driven research.
| S-EPMC6458534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMassive open online courses (MOOCs) have increased in popularity in recent years. They target a wide variety of learners and use novel teaching approaches, yet often exhibit low completion rates (10%). It is important to evaluate MOOCs to determine their impact and effectiveness, but little is known at this point about the methodologies that should be used for evaluation.ObjectiveThe purpose of this paper is to provide a protocol for a systematic review on MOOC evaluation methods.MethodsWe will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines for reporting this protocol. We developed a population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) framework to guide the search strategy, based on the overarching question, "What methods have been used to evaluate MOOCs?" The review will follow six stages: 1) literature search, 2) article selection, 3) data extraction, 4) quality appraisal, 5) data analysis, and 6) data synthesis.ResultsThe systematic review is ongoing. We completed the data searches and data abstraction in October and November 2018. We are now analyzing the data and expect to complete the systematic review by March 2019.ConclusionsThis systematic review will provide a useful summary of the methods used for evaluation of MOOCs and the strengths and limitations of each approach. It will also identify gaps in the literature and areas for future work.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/12087.
| S-EPMC6427096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a shortage of health care professionals competent in diabetes management worldwide. Digital education is increasingly used in educating health professionals on diabetes. Digital diabetes self-management education for patients has been shown to improve patients' knowledge and outcomes. However, the effectiveness of digital education on diabetes management for health care professionals is still unknown.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and economic impact of digital education in improving health care professionals' knowledge, skills, attitudes, satisfaction, and competencies. We also assessed its impact on patient outcomes and health care professionals' behavior.MethodsWe included randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of digitalized diabetes management education for health care professionals pre- and postregistration. Publications from 1990 to 2017 were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, and Web of Science. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 authors.ResultsA total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of digital education modality, comparators, outcome measures, and intervention duration. Most studies comparing digital or blended education to traditional education reported significantly higher knowledge and skills scores in the intervention group. There was little or no between-group difference in patient outcomes or economic impact. Most studies were judged at a high or unclear risk of bias.ConclusionsDigital education seems to be more effective than traditional education in improving diabetes management-related knowledge and skills. The paucity and low quality of the available evidence call for urgent and well-designed studies focusing on important outcomes such as health care professionals' behavior, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness as well as its impact in diverse settings, including developing countries.
| S-EPMC6403527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an important source of information, designed to help clinicians integrate research evidence into their clinical practice. Digital education is increasingly used for clinical practice guideline dissemination and adoption. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in improving the adoption of clinical practice guidelines.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases from January 1990 to September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies in any language evaluating the effectiveness of digital education on clinical practice guidelines compared to other forms of education or no intervention in healthcare professionals. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence.ResultsSeventeen trials involving 2382 participants were included. The included studies were diverse with a largely unclear or high risk of bias. They mostly focused on physicians, evaluated computer-based interventions with limited interactivity and measured participants' knowledge and behaviour. With regard to knowledge, studies comparing the effect of digital education with no intervention showed a moderate, statistically significant difference in favour of digital education intervention (SMD?=?0.85, 95% CI 0.16, 1.54; I2 =?83%, n =?3, moderate quality of evidence). Studies comparing the effect of digital education with traditional learning on knowledge showed a small, statistically non-significant difference in favour of digital education (SMD?=?0.23, 95% CI -?0.12, 0.59; I2 =?34%, n =?3, moderate quality of evidence). Three studies measured participants' skills and reported mixed results. Of four studies measuring satisfaction, three studies favoured digital education over traditional learning. Of nine studies evaluating healthcare professionals' behaviour change, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education intervention to no intervention reported improvement in the intervention group. Of three studies reporting patient outcomes, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education games to non-interactive online resources reported modest improvement in the intervention group. The quality of evidence for outcomes other than knowledge was mostly judged as low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency.ConclusionsHealth professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines is at least as effective as traditional learning and more effective than no intervention in terms of knowledge. Most studies report little or no difference in healthcare professionals' behaviours and patient outcomes. The only intervention shown to improve healthcare professionals' behaviour and modestly patient outcomes was email-delivered, spaced education. Future research should evaluate interactive, simulation-based and spaced forms of digital education and report on outcomes such as skills, behaviour, patient outcomes and cost.
| S-EPMC6637541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMicrolearning, the acquisition of knowledge or skills in the form of small units, is endorsed by health professions educators as a means of facilitating student learning, training, and continuing education, but it is difficult to define in terms of its features and outcomes.ObjectiveThis review aimed to conduct a systematic search of the literature on microlearning in health professions education to identify key concepts, characterize microlearning as an educational strategy, and evaluate pedagogical outcomes experienced by health professions students.MethodsA scoping review was performed using the bibliographic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Education Full Text (HW Wilson), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. A combination of keywords and subject headings related to microlearning, electronic learning, or just-in-time learning combined with health professions education was used. No date limits were placed on the search, but inclusion was limited to materials published in English. Pedagogical outcomes were evaluated according to the 4-level Kirkpatrick model.ResultsA total of 3096 references were retrieved, of which 17 articles were selected after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles that met the criteria were published between 2011 and 2018, and their authors were from a range of countries, including the United States, China, India, Australia, Canada, Iran, Netherlands, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. The 17 studies reviewed included various health-related disciplines, such as medicine, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, and allied health. Although microlearning appeared in a variety of subject areas, different technologies, such as podcast, short messaging service, microblogging, and social networking service, were also used. On the basis of Buchem and Hamelmann's 10 microlearning concepts, each study satisfied at least 40% of the characteristics, whereas all studies featured concepts of maximum time spent less than 15 min as well as content aggregation. According to our assessment of each article using the Kirkpatrick model, 94% (16/17) assessed student reactions to the microlearning (level 1), 82% (14/17) evaluated knowledge or skill acquisition (level 2), 29% (5/17) measured the effect of the microlearning on student behavior (level 3), and no studies were found at the highest level.ConclusionsMicrolearning as an educational strategy has demonstrated a positive effect on the knowledge and confidence of health professions students in performing procedures, retaining knowledge, studying, and engaging in collaborative learning. However, downsides to microlearning include pedagogical discomfort, technology inequalities, and privacy concerns. Future research should look at higher-level outcomes, including benefits to patients or practice changes. The findings of this scoping review will inform education researchers, faculty, and academic administrators on the application of microlearning, pinpoint gaps in the literature, and help identify opportunities for instructional designers and subject matter experts to improve course content in didactic and clinical settings.
| S-EPMC6683654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a pressing need to implement efficient and cost-effective training to address the worldwide shortage of health professionals. Mobile digital education (mLearning) has been mooted as a potential solution to increase the delivery of health professions education as it offers the opportunity for wide access at low cost and flexibility with the portability of mobile devices. To better inform policy making, we need to determine the effectiveness of mLearning.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of mLearning interventions for delivering health professions education in terms of learners' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of mLearning in health professions education using standard Cochrane methodology. We searched 7 major bibliographic databases from January 1990 to August 2017 and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster RCTs.ResultsA total of 29 studies, including 3175 learners, met the inclusion criteria. A total of 25 studies were RCTs and 4 were cluster RCTs. Interventions comprised tablet or smartphone apps, personal digital assistants, basic mobile phones, iPods, and Moving Picture Experts Group-1 audio layer 3 player devices to deliver learning content. A total of 20 studies assessed knowledge (n=2469) and compared mLearning or blended learning to traditional learning or another form of digital education. The pooled estimate of studies favored mLearning over traditional learning for knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.43, 95% CI 0.05-0.80, N=11 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no difference between blended learning and traditional learning for knowledge (SMD=0.20, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.86, N=6 studies, low-quality evidence). A total of 14 studies assessed skills (n=1097) and compared mLearning or blended learning to traditional learning or another form of digital education. The pooled estimate of studies favored mLearning (SMD=1.12, 95% CI 0.56-1.69, N=5 studies, moderate quality evidence) and blended learning (SMD=1.06, 95% CI 0.09-2.03, N=7 studies, low-quality evidence) over traditional learning for skills. A total of 5 and 4 studies assessed attitudes (n=440) and satisfaction (n=327), respectively, with inconclusive findings reported for each outcome. The risk of bias was judged as high in 16 studies.ConclusionsThe evidence base suggests that mLearning is as effective as traditional learning or possibly more so. Although acknowledging the heterogeneity among the studies, this synthesis provides encouraging early evidence to strengthen efforts aimed at expanding health professions education using mobile devices in order to help tackle the global shortage of health professionals.
| S-EPMC6390189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) is a technology that allows the user to explore and manipulate computer-generated real or artificial three-dimensional multimedia sensory environments in real time to gain practical knowledge that can be used in clinical practice.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of VR for educating health professionals and improving their knowledge, cognitive skills, attitudes, and satisfaction.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of VR in pre- and postregistration health professions education following the gold standard Cochrane methodology. We searched 7 databases from the year 1990 to August 2017. No language restrictions were applied. We included randomized controlled trials and cluster-randomized trials. We independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, and then, we compared the information in pairs. We contacted authors of the studies for additional information if necessary. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of the body of evidence.ResultsA total of 31 studies (2407 participants) were included. Meta-analysis of 8 studies found that VR slightly improves postintervention knowledge scores when compared with traditional learning (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.44; 95% CI 0.18-0.69; I2=49%; 603 participants; moderate certainty evidence) or other types of digital education such as online or offline digital education (SMD=0.43; 95% CI 0.07-0.79; I2=78%; 608 participants [8 studies]; low certainty evidence). Another meta-analysis of 4 studies found that VR improves health professionals' cognitive skills when compared with traditional learning (SMD=1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.43; I2=0%; 235 participants; large effect size; moderate certainty evidence). Two studies compared the effect of VR with other forms of digital education on skills, favoring the VR group (SMD=0.5; 95% CI 0.32-0.69; I2=0%; 467 participants; moderate effect size; low certainty evidence). The findings for attitudes and satisfaction were mixed and inconclusive. None of the studies reported any patient-related outcomes, behavior change, as well as unintended or adverse effects of VR. Overall, the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE criteria ranged from low to moderate. We downgraded our certainty of evidence primarily because of the risk of bias and/or inconsistency.ConclusionsWe found evidence suggesting that VR improves postintervention knowledge and skills outcomes of health professionals when compared with traditional education or other types of digital education such as online or offline digital education. The findings on other outcomes are limited. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of immersive and interactive forms of VR and evaluate other outcomes such as attitude, satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, and clinical practice or behavior change.
| S-EPMC6362387 | biostudies-literature