Dataset Information

Exploring the Cost of eLearning in Health Professions Education: Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Existing research on the costs associated with the design and deployment of eLearning in health professions education is limited. The relative costs of these learning platforms to those of face-to-face learning are also not well understood. The lack of predefined costing models used for eLearning cost data capture has made it difficult to complete cost evaluation.

Objective

The key aim of this scoping review was to explore the state of evidence concerning cost capture within eLearning in health professions education. The review explores the available data to define cost calculations related to eLearning.

Methods

The scoping review was performed using a search strategy with Medical Subject Heading terms and related keywords centered on eLearning and cost calculation with a population scope of health professionals in all countries. The search was limited to articles published in English. No restriction was placed on literature publication date.

Results

In total, 7344 articles were returned from the original search of the literature. Of these, 232 were relevant to associated keywords or abstract references following screening. Full-text review resulted in 168 studies being excluded. Of these, 61 studies were excluded because they were unrelated to eLearning and focused on general education. In addition, 103 studies were excluded because of lack of detailed information regarding costs; these studies referred to cost in ways either indicating cost favorability or unfavorability, but without data to support findings. Finally, 4 studies were excluded because of limited cost data that were insufficient for analysis. In total, 42 studies provided data and analysis of the impact of cost and value in health professions education. The most common data source was total cost of training (n=29). Other sources included cost per learner, referring to the cost for individual students (n=13). The population most frequently cited was medical students (n=15), although 12 articles focused on multiple populations. A further 22 studies provide details of costing approaches for the production and delivery of eLearning. These studies offer insight into the ways eLearning has been budgeted and project-managed through implementation.

Conclusions

Although cost is a recognized factor in studies detailing eLearning design and implementation, the way cost is captured is inconsistent. Despite a perception that eLearning is more cost-effective than face-to-face instruction, there is not yet sufficient evidence to assert this conclusively. A rigorous, repeatable data capture method is needed, in addition to a means to leverage existing economic evaluation methods that can then test eLearning cost-effectiveness and how to implement eLearning with cost benefits and advantages over traditional instruction.

SUBMITTER: Meinert E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8081275 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Background The articulation of learning goals, processes and outcomes related to health humanities teaching currently lacks comparability of curricula and outcomes, and requires synthesis to provide a basis for developing a curriculum and evaluation framework for health humanities teaching and learning. This scoping review sought to answer how and why the health humanities are used in health professions education. It also sought to explore how health humanities curricula are evaluated and whether the programme evaluation aligns with the desired learning outcomes. Methods A focused scoping review of qualitative and mixed-methods studies that included the influence of integrated health humanities curricula in pre-registration health professions education with programme evaluate of outcomes was completed. Studies of students not enrolled in a pre-registration course, with only ad-hoc health humanities learning experiences that were not assessed or evaluated were excluded. Four databases were searched (CINAHL), (ERIC), PubMed, and Medline. Results The search over a 5 year period, identified 8621 publications. Title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening, resulted in 24 articles selected for inclusion. Learning outcomes, learning activities and evaluation data were extracted from each included publication. Discussion Reported health humanities curricula focused on developing students’ capacity for perspective, reflexivity, self- reflection and person-centred approaches to communication. However, the learning outcomes were not consistently described, identifying a limited capacity to compare health humanities curricula across programmes. A set of clearly stated generic capabilities or outcomes from learning in health humanities would be a helpful next step for benchmarking, clarification and comparison of evaluation strategy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-021-03002-1.

Project description:BackgroundTeaching cybercivility requires thoughtful attention to curriculum development and content delivery. Theories, models, and conceptual and theoretical frameworks (hereafter "tools") provide useful foundations for integrating new knowledge and skills into existing professional practice and education. We conducted this scoping review to identify tools used for teaching cybercivility in health professions education.MethodsUsing Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, we searched six biomedical and educational databases and three grey literature databases for articles available in English published between January 1, 2000 and March 31, 2020. Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), we screened and extracted relevant data, and reported the results of the search.ResultsThe search resulted in 2272 articles, with 8 articles included in this review after inclusion criteria were applied. Four articles (50%) were peer-reviewed journal papers while the other 4 (50%) were dissertations. Eleven unique tools were identified by this review: (1) Transpersonal Caring Theory, (2) Theory of Workplace Incivility, (3) Conceptualization of Incivility, (4) Media Ecology Theory, (5) Principlism, (6) Salmon's Five Stage Model of Online Learning, (7) Learner-Centered Educational Theory, (8) Gallant and Drinan's 4-Stage Model of Institutionalization of Academic Integrity, (9) Theory of Planned Behavior, (10) Communication Privacy Management Theory, and (11) Moral Development Theory. Based on the tools analyzed in our scoping review, we determined three features of cybercivility pedagogy to which the tools provided a guide: (1) behavioral manifestations, (2) academic integrity, and (3) digital professionalism.ConclusionsThe reviewed tools provide a pedagogical foundation and guidance for teaching various properties of cybercivility. Future studies should be expanded to include a broader literature body and non-English literature to provide the global perspective and global skills needed by a diverse population of learners.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of healthcare professionals leaving clinical practice and transitioning to alternative careers in health professions education is increasing. Among these non-practicing healthcare professionals, concerns have been reported regarding tensions in relation to identity, role, and credibility in their new field. There are suggestions that this is a particularly pressing issue for minoritised professionals who make this transition. Support is critical to attract and retain diverse talent within health professions education teaching and research. The purpose of this scoping review is to explore the career experiences of non-practicing healthcare professionals who work in health professions education internationally.MethodsArksey and O'Malley's framework has been utilised to guide the design of this scoping review process and will be used throughout the course of the review. A comprehensive search of seven electronic databases and limited search of Google Scholar will be conducted, as well as a hand search of eligible article reference lists. Two reviewers will independently screen all articles based on inclusion criteria, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Data from included articles will be charted, collated, and analysed thematically. Meta-data will be summarised quantitatively.DiscussionThis scoping review aims to explore the role and experiences of non-practicing healthcare professionals working within health professions education. The review will follow established scoping review guidelines and will include studies from various regions and languages, provided an English translation is available. The study remit will be broad, including both quantitative and qualitative studies, as well as reviews and opinion papers. Limitations may include the exclusion of non-English articles and potential difficulty of identifying papers which discuss the experiences of non-practicing clinicians. However, the review will provide insight into the current knowledge on what it is like to be a non-practicing clinician working within health professions education and identify gaps for both future research, and future support for those making this career transition.Systematic review registrationOpen Science Framework Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/485Z3.