Dataset Information

Efficacy of adaptive e-learning for health professionals and students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Although adaptive e-learning environments (AEEs) can provide personalised instruction to health professional and students, their efficacy remains unclear. Therefore, this review aimed to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence regarding the efficacy of AEEs in improving knowledge, skills and clinical behaviour in health professionals and students. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science from the first year of records to February 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Controlled studies that evaluated the effect of an AEE on knowledge, skills or clinical behaviour in health professionals or students. SCREENING, DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two authors screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and coded quality of evidence independently. AEEs were reviewed with regard to their topic, theoretical framework and adaptivity process. Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they had a non-adaptive e-learning environment control group and had no missing data. Effect sizes (ES) were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS:From a pool of 10 569 articles, we included 21 eligible studies enrolling 3684 health professionals and students. Clinical topics were mostly related to diagnostic testing, theoretical frameworks were varied and the adaptivity process was characterised by five subdomains: method, goals, timing, factors and types. The pooled ES was 0.70 for knowledge (95% CI -0.08 to 1.49; p.08) and 1.19 for skills (95% CI 0.59 to 1.79; p<0.00001). Risk of bias was generally high. Heterogeneity was large in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS:AEEs appear particularly effective in improving skills in health professionals and students. The adaptivity process within AEEs may be more beneficial for learning skills rather than factual knowledge, which generates less cognitive load. Future research should report more clearly on the design and adaptivity process of AEEs, and target higher-level outcomes, such as clinical behaviour. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017065585.

SUBMITTER: Fontaine G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6719835 | biostudies-other | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of adaptive e-learning for health professionals and students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fontaine Guillaume G Cossette Sylvie S Maheu-Cadotte Marc-André MA Mailhot Tanya T Deschênes Marie-France MF Mathieu-Dupuis Gabrielle G Côté José J Gagnon Marie-Pierre MP Dubé Veronique V

BMJ open 20190828 8

<h4>Objective</h4>Although adaptive e-learning environments (AEEs) can provide personalised instruction to health professional and students, their efficacy remains unclear. Therefore, this review aimed to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence regarding the efficacy of AEEs in improving knowledge, skills and clinical behaviour in health professionals and students.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Scie ...[more]

PMID: 31467045

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdaptive e-learning environments (AEEs) can provide tailored instruction by adapting content, navigation, presentation, multimedia, and tools to each user's navigation behavior, individual objectives, knowledge, and preferences. AEEs can have various levels of complexity, ranging from systems using a simple adaptive functionality to systems using artificial intelligence. While AEEs are promising, their effectiveness for the education of health professionals and health professions students remains unclear.ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of AEEs in improving knowledge, competence, and behavior in health professionals and students.MethodsWe will follow the Cochrane Collaboration and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group guidelines on systematic review methodology. A systematic search of the literature will be conducted in 6 bibliographic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science) using the concepts "adaptive e-learning environments," "health professionals/students," and "effects on knowledge/skills/behavior." We will include randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, in addition to controlled before-after, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies published between 2005 and 2017. The title and the abstract of each study followed by a full-text assessment of potentially eligible studies will be independently screened by 2 review authors. Using the EPOC extraction form, 1 review author will conduct data extraction and a second author will validate the data extraction. The methodological quality of included studies will be independently assessed by 2 review authors using the EPOC risk of bias criteria. Included studies will be synthesized by a descriptive analysis. Where appropriate, data will be pooled using meta-analysis by applying the RevMan software version 5.1, considering the heterogeneity of studies.ResultsThe review is in progress. We plan to submit the results in the beginning of 2018.ConclusionProviding tailored instruction to health professionals and students is a priority in order to optimize learning and clinical outcomes. This systematic review will synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of AEEs in improving knowledge, competence, and behavior in health professionals and students. It will provide guidance to policy makers, hospital managers, and researchers in terms of AEE development, implementation, and evaluation in health care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) programs are increasingly seen as the way in which education for health care professionals can be transformed, giving access to effective ongoing learning and training even where time or geographical barriers exist. Given the increasing emphasis on this mode of educational support for health care practitioners, it is vital that we can effectively evaluate and measure impact to ensure that TEL programs are effective and fit for purpose. This paper examines the current evidence base for the first time, in relation to the evaluation of TEL programs for health care professionals. OBJECTIVE:We conducted a systematic review of the current literature relating to the evaluation of TEL programs for health care professionals and critically appraised the quality of the studies. METHODS:This review employed specific search criteria to identify research studies that included evaluation of TEL for health care professionals. The databases searched included Medline Ovid, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus Advanced, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, ZETOC, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Explore Digital Library, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Education Resources Information Center between January 2006 and January 2017. An additional hand search for relevant articles from reference lists was undertaken. Each of the studies identified was critically appraised for quality using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. This approach produced a percentage total score for each study across specified categories. A proportion of the studies were independently assessed by an additional two reviewers. RESULTS:The review identified 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The studies included scored totals across eight categories within a range of 37%-95% and an average score of 68%. Studies that measured TEL using learner satisfaction surveys, or combined pretest and posttest knowledge score testing with learner satisfaction surveys, were found to be the most common types of TEL evaluations evident in the literature. The studies reviewed had low scores across reporting on ethical matters, design, and data collection categories. CONCLUSIONS:There continues to be a need to develop effective and standard TEL evaluation tools, and good quality studies that describe effective evaluation of TEL education for health care professionals. Studies often fail to provide sufficient detail to support transferability or direct future TEL health care education programs.

Project description:BackgroundReflective writing provides an opportunity for health professionals and students to learn from their mistakes, successes, anxieties, and worries that otherwise would remain disjointed and worthless. This systematic review addresses the following question: "What are the experiences of health professionals and students in applying reflective writing during their education and training?"MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Our search comprised six electronic databases: MedLine, Embase, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Eric, and Scopus. Our initial search produced 1237 titles, excluding duplicates that we removed. After title and abstract screening, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified descriptive themes and the conceptual elements explaining the health professionals' and students' experience using reflective writing during their academic and in-service training by performing a meta-synthesis.ResultsWe identified four main categories (and related sub-categories) through the meta-synthesis: reflection and reflexivity, accomplishing learning potential, building a philosophical and empathic approach, and identifying reflective writing feasibility. We placed the main categories into an interpretative model which explains the users' experiences of reflective writing during their education and training. Reflective writing triggered reflection and reflexivity that allows, on the one hand, skills development, professional growth, and the ability to act on change; on the other hand, the acquisition of empathic attitudes and sensitivity towards one's own and others' emotions. Perceived barriers and impeding factors and facilitating ones, like timing and strategies for using reflective writing, were also identified.ConclusionsThe use of this learning methodology is crucial today because of the recognition of the increasing complexity of healthcare contexts requiring professionals to learn advanced skills beyond their clinical ones. Implementing reflective writing-based courses and training in university curricula and clinical contexts can benefit human and professional development.

Project description:BackgroundInternational estimates suggest around a third of students arrives at university with symptoms indicative of a common mental disorder, many in late adolescence at a developmentally high-risk period for the emergence of mental disorder. Universities, as settings, represent an opportunity to contribute to the improvement of population mental health. We sought to understand what is known about the management of student mental health, and asked: (1) What proportion of students use mental health services when experiencing psychological distress? (2) Does use by students differ across health service types?MethodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines using a Context, Condition, Population framework (CoCoPop) with a protocol preregistered on Prospero (CRD42021238273). Electronic database searches in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and CINAHL Plus, key authors were contacted, citation searches were conducted, and the reference list of the WHO World Mental Health International College Student Initiative (WMH-ICS) was searched. Data extraction was performed using a pre-defined framework, and quality appraisal using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Data were synthesised narratively and meta-analyses at both the study and estimate level.Results7789 records were identified through the search strategies, with a total of 44 studies meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of included studies from the USA (n = 36), with remaining studies from Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia and Italy. Overall, studies contained 123 estimates of mental health service use associated with a heterogeneous range of services, taking highly variable numbers of students across a variety of settings.DiscussionThis is the first systematic quantitative survey of student mental health service use. The empirical literature to date is very limited in terms of a small number of international studies outside of the USA; studies of how services link together, and of student access. The significant variation we found in the proportions of students using services within and between studies across different settings and populations suggests the current services described in the literature are not meeting the needs of all students.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of adaptive e-learning for health professionals and students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy of adaptive e-learning for health professionals and students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets