Evaluating Usability in Blended Learning Programs Within Health Professions Education: a Scoping Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01295-x.
SUBMITTER: Arora AK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8133057 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionIn health professions education (HPE), acknowledging and understanding the theories behind the learning process is important in optimizing learning environments, enhancing efficiency, and harmonizing the education system. Hence, it is argued that learning theories should influence educational curricula, interventions planning, implementation, and evaluation in health professions education programs (HPEPs). However, learning theories are not regularly and consistently implemented in educational practices, partly due to a paucity of specific in-context examples to help educators consider the relevance of the theories to their teaching setting. This scoping review attempts to provide an overview of the use of social theories of learning (SToLs) in HPEPs.MethodA scoping search strategy was designed to identify the relevant articles using two key concepts: SToLs, and HPEPs. Four databases (PubMed, ERIC, ProQuest, and Cochrane) were searched for primary research studies published in English from 2011 to 2020. No study design restrictions were applied. Data analysis involved a descriptive qualitative and quantitative summary according to the SToL identified, context of use, and included discipline.ResultsNine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Only two SToLs were identified in this review: Bandura's social learning theory (n = 5) and Lave and Wenger's communities of practice (CoP) theory (n = 4). A total of five studies used SToLs in nursing programs, one in medicine, one in pharmacy, and two used SToLs in multi-disciplinary programs. SToLs were predominantly used in teaching and learning (n = 7), with the remaining focusing on assessment (n = 1) and curriculum design (n = 1).ConclusionsThis review illustrated the successful and effective use of SToLs in different HPEPs, which can be used as a guide for educators and researchers on the application of SToLs in other HPEPs. However, the limited number of HPEPs that apply and report the use of SToLs suggests a potential disconnect between SToLs and educational practices. Therefore, this review supports earlier calls for collaborative reform initiatives to enhance the optimal use of SToLs in HPEPs. Future research should focus on the applicability and usefulness of other theories of learning in HPEPs and on measuring implementation outcomes.Systematic Review Registration: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#registryofsystematicreviewsmetaanalyses/registryofsystematicreviewsmeta-analysesdetails/60070249970590001bd06f38/, identifier review registry1069.
| S-EPMC9367215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the definitions and applications of 'spaced learning' and to propose future directions for advancing its study and practice in health professions education.MethodThe authors searched five online databases for articles published on spaced learning in health professions education prior to February 2018. Two researchers independently screened articles for eligibility with set inclusion criteria. They extracted and analysed key data using both quantitative and qualitative methods.ResultsOf the 2972 records retrieved, 120 articles were included in the review. More than 90% of these articles were published in the last 10 years. The definition of spaced learning varied widely and was often not theoretically grounded. Spaced learning was applied in distinct contexts, including online learning, simulation training and classroom settings. There was a large variety of spacing formats, ranging from dispersion of information or practice on a single day, to intervals lasting several months. Generally, spaced learning was implemented in practice or testing phases and rarely during teaching.ConclusionsSpaced learning is infrequently and poorly defined in the health professions education literature. We propose a comprehensive definition of spaced learning and emphasise that detailed descriptions of spacing formats are needed in future research to facilitate the operationalisation of spaced learning research and practice in health professions education.
| S-EPMC7064953 | 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:BackgroundIntegrating teaching and research may boost students' learning and improve future clinical practice when incorporated into education. Explorations of health professions students' involvement in the research processes and their learning outcomes are sparse. Thus, the purpose of this scoping review is to explore the existing scientific literature on courses involving students from health professions education in research activities. The research questions are: Which parts of the research process are the health professions students involved in, and what are the students' main learning outcomes related to the research process reported to be?MethodsA scoping review following the six-step approach of Arksey and O'Malley was undertaken. We searched four electronic databases to identify studies focusing on research-based teaching in health professions education. Inspired by content analysis, we identified key concepts relating to the research process and learning outcomes.ResultsWe screened 1084 abstracts, reviewed 95 full-text reports, and included 24 for analysis. Overall, the students were more involved in conducting and disseminating research than in the planning phases. Learning outcomes were most frequently reported as specific research skills, such as conducting literature reviews, writing academically, and presenting results, but also as improved understanding of research in general as well as improved motivation and confidence in conducting research.ConclusionsThe heterogeneity of educational programs, study designs, and measures makes it difficult to draw conclusions across the studies included in the review. More research is needed to conclude whether health professions students who actively engage in research gain a better understanding of the research process, become more likely to pursue research in their practice, or are more motivated to choose an academic career.
| S-EPMC10492286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As digital technologies rapidly integrate into Health Professions Education (HPE), understanding cyberethics is increasingly crucial. This scoping review explores the pedagogy of cyberethics in HPE, highlighting a significant gap in explicit definitions and conceptualizations. Additionally, the absence of specific theoretical frameworks in most documents raises concerns about research progression. Only four articles introduce educational interventions in cyberethics, indicating a promising avenue for future research. While comprehensive search methods are employed, limitations, including language biases, exist. Future investigations should broaden the discourse to encompass ethical implications of emerging technologies within HPE. Cultivating comprehensive, culturally sensitive, and inclusive guidelines is vital for ethical digital practices in the health care community.
| S-EPMC10671151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Threshold concepts (TCs) are increasingly used in health professions education (HPE) research. TCs are claimed to be conceptual gateways which are often traversed with substantial difficulty. In this paper, we report on a scoping review investigating the following research question: What is the scope and nature of the currently available research on threshold concepts in health professions education literature? We employed Arksey and O'Malley's model for scoping reviews. A search for literature on TCs in HPE research between 2003 and 2020 yielded 999 records of which 59 were included in the review. The data set was subject to quantitative descriptive analysis of article characteristics as well as qualitative thematic analysis of the scope of research on TCs. Among the 59 articles selected for review, there were 30 empirical, 26 conceptual and three reviews. A majority were published in 2015 or later. Almost half of the included articles attempted to identify possible TCs within HPE. Others investigated how TCs can be traversed or suggested how TCs could influence curriculum design. Some critically appraised the framework of TC. Although TCs are increasingly utilised in HPE, the present review identified how researchers came across methodological challenges related to identifying possible TCs and definitional challenges around identifying the essential characteristics of TCs. Before embracing TCs as the next go-to theory for learning in HPE, we acknowledge the need for methodological stringeny and rigour as well as more data to support TCs. Until then, any implementation of TCs in HPE curricula should be done cautiously.
| S-EPMC9859919 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8579562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExisting 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.
| S-EPMC8081275 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7847571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBlended learning, defined as the combination of traditional face-to-face learning and asynchronous or synchronous e-learning, has grown rapidly and is now widely used in education. Concerns about the effectiveness of blended learning have led to an increasing number of studies on this topic. However, there has yet to be a quantitative synthesis evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning on knowledge acquisition in health professions.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the effectiveness of blended learning for health professional learners compared with no intervention and with nonblended learning. We also aimed to explore factors that could explain differences in learning effects across study designs, participants, country socioeconomic status, intervention durations, randomization, and quality score for each of these questions.MethodsWe conducted a search of citations in Medline, CINAHL, Science Direct, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ERIC through September 2014. Studies in any language that compared blended learning with no intervention or nonblended learning among health professional learners and assessed knowledge acquisition were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and abstracted information including characteristics of learners and intervention (study design, exercises, interactivity, peer discussion, and outcome assessment).ResultsWe identified 56 eligible articles. Heterogeneity across studies was large (I(2) ≥93.3) in all analyses. For studies comparing knowledge gained from blended learning versus no intervention, the pooled effect size was 1.40 (95% CI 1.04-1.77; P<.001; n=20 interventions) with no significant publication bias, and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. For studies comparing blended learning with nonblended learning (pure e-learning or pure traditional face-to-face learning), the pooled effect size was 0.81 (95% CI 0.57-1.05; P<.001; n=56 interventions), and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. Although significant publication bias was found, the trim and fill method showed that the effect size changed to 0.26 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.54) after adjustment. In the subgroup analyses, pre-posttest study design, presence of exercises, and objective outcome assessment yielded larger effect sizes.ConclusionsBlended learning appears to have a consistent positive effect in comparison with no intervention, and to be more effective than or at least as effective as nonblended instruction for knowledge acquisition in health professions. Due to the large heterogeneity, the conclusion should be treated with caution.
| S-EPMC4717286 | biostudies-literature