Dataset Information

Effectiveness of blended learning in pharmacy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background & objective

Though blended learning (BL), is widely adopted in higher education, evaluating effectiveness of BL is difficult because the components of BL can be extremely heterogeneous. Purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of BL in improving knowledge and skill in pharmacy education.

Methods

PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify published literature. The retrieved studies from databases were screened for its title and abstracts followed by the full-text in accordance with the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Methodological quality was appraised by modified Ottawa scale. Random effect model used for statistical modelling.

Key findings

A total of 26 studies were included for systematic review. Out of which 20 studies with 4525 participants for meta-analysis which employed traditional teaching in control group. Results showed a statistically significant positive effect size on knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 1.78, p<0.00001) and skill (SMD: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.19 to 1.16; p = 0.006) using a random effect model. Subgroup analysis of cohort studies showed, studies from developed countries had a larger effect size (SMD: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.06), than studies from developing countries(SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.65, studies with MCQ pattern as outcome assessment had larger effect size (SMD: 2.81, 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.85) than non-MCQs (SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.74), and BL with case studies (SMD 2.72, 95% CI 1.86-3.59) showed better effect size than non-case-based studies (SMD: 0.22, CI: 0.02 to 0.41).

Conclusion

BL is associated with better academic performance and achievement than didactic teaching in pharmacy education.

SUBMITTER: Balakrishnan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8211173 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:Background &objectivesThough there are studies to evaluate the effectiveness of blended learning in pharmacy education, most of them originate from USA and have used previous year students' scores as control. Also there is less research in comparing use of self -regulated learning strategies between blended and other learning strategies. Primary aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of blended learning on knowledge score using clinical research modules. Secondary objective was designed to compare the use of self-regulated learning strategies between blended learning, web-based e-learning and didactic teaching.Materials and methodsA prospective cluster randomized trial was conducted with didactic teaching as control and web-based e-learning and blended learning as interventions. The target population was final year Pharm D students. Outcome was assessed using a validated knowledge questionnaire, a motivated strategies for learning questionnaire and a feedback form. All statistical analyses were carried out using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) Version 20.ResultsA total of 241 students from 12 colleges completed the study. Mean knowledge score of students in blended learning group was higher than those in the didactic teaching and web- based e- learning program (64.26±18.19 Vs 56.65±8.73 Vs 52.11±22.06,p<0.001).Frequency of use of learning strategies namely rehearsal, elaboration, organization and critical thinking was statistically significantly higher in the blended learning group compared to those of didactic and web-based e-learning group (p<0.05) But there were no statistically significant difference of motivational orientations between didactic and blended learning group except strategies of extrinsic goal orientation and self-efficacy. Students preferred blended learning (86.5%) over didactic and web-based e-learning.ConclusionBlended learning approach is an effective way to teach clinical research module. Students of blended learning group employed all motivational and learning strategies more often than students of the didactic and web- based e-learning groups except strategies of intrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learning belief and help seeking.

Project description:BackgroundRecent years have witnessed the wide application of team-based learning(TBL) pedagogy in Chinese pharmacy education. However, the relevant systematic review evaluating the effects of such new pedagogical approach has not been established. The present study was designed to examine systematically the effect of using TBL approach in pharmacy education in China.MethodsSix databases were searched from the inception to January 2019. The studies reporting the performance of pharmacy students in Chinese university or college receiving TBL pedagogy compared to those receiving traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) were enrolled to be analyzed. Scores of the objective theoretical test were considered as the primary outcome, and the results from questionnaires about the number of students who approved the effects of TBL pedagogy on improving their learning enthusiasm, self-study ability, thinking ability, and communication skills were considered as the secondary outcome. A meta-analysis was conducted following the guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses statement.ResultsA total of 1271 students in 12 studies published from 2013 to 2018 were enrolled in present analysis. Compared with traditional LBL pedagogy, TBL pedagogy exhibited more effectiveness in developing the objective tests scores of pharmacy students from both universities (SMD = 1.69, 95% CI [1.10, 2.28], p < 0.00001) and colleges (SMD = 4.37, 95% CI [1.33, 7.40], p < 0.00001), and such pedagogy applied well in experiments-oriented courses (SMD = 2.14, 95% CI [0.86, 3.43], p < 0.00001) and theory-oriented courses (SMD = 2.77, 95% CI [1.41, 4.14], p < 0.00001). In addition, it developed students' learning enthusiasm, students' self-study ability, thinking ability, and enhanced students' communication skills.ConclusionsTBL pedagogy has developed rapidly and applied widely in Chinese pharmacy education during the last decade. The results indicated that such novel pedagogy is compatible with the present situation of Chinese pharmacy education. And it could be considered as an effective method to enhance both the theoretical test scores and various abilities of Chinese pharmacy students.

Project description:BackgroundDigital learning designs have the potential to support teaching and learning within higher education. However, the research on digital learning designs within physiotherapy education is limited. This study aims to identify and investigate the effectiveness of digital learning designs in physiotherapy education.MethodsThe study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials. A search of eight databases on digital learning designs and technology was conducted. Study selection, methodology and quality assessment were performed independently by three reviewers. The included studies were mapped according to the types of digital interventions and studies. For similar interventions, the learning effects were calculated using meta-analyses.ResultsAltogether, 22 studies were included in the review (17 randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies). A blended learning design was used in 21 studies, a flipped classroom model in five and a distance learning design in one. Altogether, 10 of the 22 articles were included in meta-analyses, which showed statistically significant effects for flipped classrooms on knowledge acquisition (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20, 0.62), for interactive websites or applications (apps) on practical skills (SMD: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.71,1.43) and for students self-produced videos on a practical skill in a cervical spine scenario (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.93). Overall, the effects indicated that blended learning designs are equally as or more effective than traditional classroom teaching to achieve learning outcomes. Distance learning showed no significant differences compared to traditional classroom teaching.ConclusionsThe current findings from physiotherapy education indicate that digital learning designs in the form of blended learning and distance learning were equally or more effective compared to traditional teaching. The meta-analyses revealed significant effects on student learning in favour of the interventions using flipped classrooms, interactive websites/apps and students self-produced videos. However, these results must be confirmed in larger controlled trials. Further, research should investigate how digital learning designs can facilitate students' learning of practical skills and behaviour, learning retention and approaches to studying as well as references for teaching and learning in digital learning environments.