Dataset Information

Study design and protocol for a comprehensive evaluation of a UK massive open online course (MOOC) on quality improvement in healthcare.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) offer a flexible approach to online and distance learning, and are growing in popularity. Several MOOCs are now available, to help learners build on their knowledge in a number of healthcare topics. More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of MOOCs as an online education tool, and explore their long-term impact on learners' professional practice. We present a protocol describing the design of comprehensive, mixed-methods evaluation of a MOOC, 'Q uality I mprovement ( QI ) in H ealthcare : the Case for Change', which aims to improve learner's knowledge and understanding of QI approaches in healthcare, and to increase their confidence in participating, and possibly leading QI projects.

Methods and analysis

A pre-post study design using quantitative and qualitative methods will be used to evaluate the QI MOOC. Different elements of the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness and maintenance) and Kirkpatrick (reaction, learning and behaviour) models will be used to guide the evaluation. All learners who register for the course will be invited to participate in the QI MOOC evaluation study. Those who consent will be asked to complete a presurvey to assess baseline QI knowledge (self-report and objective) and perceived confidence in engaging in QI activities. On completion of the course, participants will complete a postsurvey measuring again knowledge and perceived confidence. Feedback on the course content and how it can be improved. A subset of participants will be invited to take part in a follow-up qualitative interview, 3?months after taking the course, to explore in depth how the MOOC impacted their behaviour in practice.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been approved by the University of Bath Human Research Ethics Committee (reference: 2958). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and disseminated at conference and departmental presentations, and more widely using social media, microblogging sites and periodicals aimed at healthcare professionals.

SUBMITTER: Smith-Lickess SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7008416 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Study design and protocol for a comprehensive evaluation of a UK massive open online course (MOOC) on quality improvement in healthcare.

Smith-Lickess Sian K SK Woodhead Tricia T Burhouse Anna A Vasilakis Christos C

BMJ open 20191223 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Massive open online courses (MOOCs) offer a flexible approach to online and distance learning, and are growing in popularity. Several MOOCs are now available, to help learners build on their knowledge in a number of healthcare topics. More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of MOOCs as an online education tool, and explore their long-term impact on learners' professional practice. We present a protocol describing the design of comprehensive, mixed-methods eval ...[more]

PMID: 31874877

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The educational technology of massive open online courses (MOOCs) has been successfully applied in a wide variety of disciplines and are an intense focus of educational research at this time. Educators are now looking to MOOC technology as a means to improve professional medical education, but very little is known about how medical MOOCs compare with traditional content delivery. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of the course evaluations for the Medicine as a Business elective by fourth-year medical students at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine (SIU-SOM) for the 2012-2015 academic years was conducted. This course was delivered by small group flipped classroom discussions for 2012-2014 and delivered via MOOC technology in 2015. Learner ratings were compared between the two course delivery methods using routinely collected course evaluations. RESULTS:Course enrollment has ranged from 6-19 students per year in the 2012-2015 academic years. Student evaluations of the course are favorable in the areas of effective teaching, accurate course objectives, meeting personal learning objectives, recommending the course to other students, and overall when rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The majority of all student ratings (76-95%) of this elective course are for the highest possible choice (Strongly agree or Excellent) for any criteria, regardless if the course was delivered via a traditional or MOOC format. Statistical analysis of these ratings suggests that the Effective Teacher and Overall Evaluations did not statistically differ between the two delivery formats. DISCUSSION:Student ratings of this elective course were highly similar when delivered in a flipped classroom format or by using MOOC technology. The primary advantage of this new course format is flexibility of time and place for learners, allowing them to complete the course objectives when convenient for them. The course evaluations suggest this is a change that is acceptable to the target audience. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that learner evaluations of a fourth-year medical school elective course do not significantly differ when delivered by flipped classroom group discussions or via MOOC technology in a very small single center observational study. Further investigation is required to determine if this delivery method is an acceptable and effective means of teaching in the medical school environment.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding respiratory physiology and mechanical ventilation is a challenge for healthcare workers, particularly, medical residents. A team of French-speaking experts developed an innovative MOOC incorporating interactive simulation-based videos and serious games aiming at improving knowledge and skills in mechanical ventilation. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term knowledge retention regarding key concepts presented in this MOOC.MethodsFrench residents registered for the MOOC 2020's winter session were invited to participate in a two-step study. The first step consisted in evaluating students' pre-course knowledge of respiratory physiology and mechanical ventilation fusing a 20 five-item multiple choice questions test with a total score ranging from 0 to 100. For the second step, the same students answered the same test (after shuffling the questions) six months after the completion of the course. We assessed the impact of this MOOC on the students' knowledge retention by comparing pre-course and post-course scores.ResultOf the 102 residents who agreed to participate in the study, 80 completed the course and their mean ± SD pre-course score was 76.0 ± 8.0. Fifty-one respondents also completed the second and their post-course score was significantly higher than the baseline one (83.1 ± 7.3 vs. 77.5 ± 7.6, p < 0.001). Scores of the first and second rounds did not differ upon comparing respondents' background specialty or number of years of residency. For the vast majority of individual questions (96%), the success rate was higher at the post-course than at the pre-course assessment.ConclusionAn innovative MOOC incorporating simulation-based videos was effective in teaching medical residents basic mechanical ventilation knowledge and skills, especially in the field of respiratory physiology and ventilatory modes. We observed effective long-term knowledge retention with a higher score at the post-course assessment six months after the completion of the course compared with the pre-course score.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have the potential to make a broader educational impact because many learners undertake these courses. Despite their reach, there is a lack of knowledge about which methods are used for evaluating these courses. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this review was to identify current MOOC evaluation methods to inform future study designs. METHODS:We systematically searched the following databases for studies published from January 2008 to October 2018: (1) Scopus, (2) Education Resources Information Center, (3) IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) Xplore, (4) PubMed, (5) Web of Science, (6) British Education Index, and (7) Google Scholar search engine. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and titles of the studies. Published studies in the English language that evaluated MOOCs were included. The study design of the evaluations, the underlying motivation for the evaluation studies, data collection, and data analysis methods were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. The quality of the included studies was appraised using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the National Institutes of Health-National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool for cohort observational studies and for before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group. RESULTS:The initial search resulted in 3275 studies, and 33 eligible studies were included in this review. In total, 16 studies used a quantitative study design, 11 used a qualitative design, and 6 used a mixed methods study design. In all, 16 studies evaluated learner characteristics and behavior, and 20 studies evaluated learning outcomes and experiences. A total of 12 studies used 1 data source, 11 used 2 data sources, 7 used 3 data sources, 4 used 2 data sources, and 1 used 5 data sources. Overall, 3 studies used more than 3 data sources in their evaluation. In terms of the data analysis methods, quantitative methods were most prominent with descriptive and inferential statistics, which were the top 2 preferred methods. In all, 26 studies with a cross-sectional design had a low-quality assessment, whereas RCTs and quasi-experimental studies received a high-quality assessment. CONCLUSIONS:The MOOC evaluation data collection and data analysis methods should be determined carefully on the basis of the aim of the evaluation. The MOOC evaluations are subject to bias, which could be reduced using pre-MOOC measures for comparison or by controlling for confounding variables. Future MOOC evaluations should consider using more diverse data sources and data analysis methods. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):RR2-10.2196/12087.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The digital revolution has led to a boom in the number of available online health care resources. To navigate these resources successfully, digital literacy education is required. Learners who can evaluate the reliability and validity of online health care information are likely to be more effective at avoiding potentially dangerous misinformation. In addition to providing health care education, massive open online courses (MOOCs) are well positioned to play a role in providing digital literacy education in this context. OBJECTIVE:This study focused on learners enrolled in a MOOC on cancer genomics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a series of digital literacy-related activities within this course. This was an iterative study, with changes made to digital literacy-related activities in 4 of the 8 runs of the course. METHODS:This mixed methods study focused on learner engagement with the digital literacy-related activities, including the final course written assignment. Quantitative data including the number of references listed in each written assignment were compared between successive runs. Qualitative data in the form of learner comments on discussion forums for digital literacy-related tasks were evaluated to determine the impact of these educational activities. RESULTS:Using the number of references included for each final course assignment as an indicator of digital literacy skills, the digital literacy-related activities in the final 2 runs were judged to be the most successful. We found a statistically significant increase in the number of references cited by learners in their final written assignments. The average number of references cited in Run 8 was significantly higher (3.5) than in Run 1 (1.8) of the MOOC (P=.001). Learner comments in Runs 7 and 8 showed that a poll in which learners were asked to select which of 4 online resources was reliable was effective in stimulating learner discussion about how to evaluate resource reliability. CONCLUSIONS:Similar to many health care MOOCs, the course studied here had a heterogeneous group of learners, including patients (and their families), the public, health care students, and practitioners. Carefully designing a range of digital literacy-related activities that would be beneficial to this heterogenous group of learners enabled learners to become more effective at evaluating and citing appropriate online resources within their written assignments.

Dataset Information

Study design and protocol for a comprehensive evaluation of a UK massive open online course (MOOC) on quality improvement in healthcare.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Study design and protocol for a comprehensive evaluation of a UK massive open online course (MOOC) on quality improvement in healthcare.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets