14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Online Digital Education for Postregistration Training of Medical Doctors: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Globally, online and local area network–based (LAN) digital education (ODE) has grown in popularity. Blended learning is used by ODE along with traditional learning. Studies have shown the increasing potential of these technologies in training medical doctors; however, the evidence for its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is unclear.

          Objective

          This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of online and LAN-based ODE in improving practicing medical doctors’ knowledge, skills, attitude, satisfaction (primary outcomes), practice or behavior change, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness (secondary outcomes).

          Methods

          We searched seven electronic databased for randomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized trials, and quasi-randomized trials from January 1990 to March 2017. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We have presented the findings narratively. We mainly compared ODE with self-directed/face-to-face learning and blended learning with self-directed/face-to-face learning.

          Results

          A total of 93 studies (N=16,895) were included, of which 76 compared ODE (including blended) and self-directed/face-to-face learning. Overall, the effect of ODE (including blended) on postintervention knowledge, skills, attitude, satisfaction, practice or behavior change, and patient outcomes was inconsistent and ranged mostly from no difference between the groups to higher postintervention score in the intervention group (small to large effect size, very low to low quality evidence). Twenty-one studies reported higher knowledge scores (small to large effect size and very low quality) for the intervention, while 20 studies reported no difference in knowledge between the groups. Seven studies reported higher skill score in the intervention (large effect size and low quality), while 13 studies reported no difference in the skill scores between the groups. One study reported a higher attitude score for the intervention (very low quality), while four studies reported no difference in the attitude score between the groups. Four studies reported higher postintervention physician satisfaction with the intervention (large effect size and low quality), while six studies reported no difference in satisfaction between the groups. Eight studies reported higher postintervention practice or behavior change for the ODE group (small to moderate effect size and low quality), while five studies reported no difference in practice or behavior change between the groups. One study reported higher improvement in patient outcome, while three others reported no difference in patient outcome between the groups. None of the included studies reported any unintended/adverse effects or cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

          Conclusions

          Empiric evidence showed that ODE and blended learning may be equivalent to self-directed/face-to-face learning for training practicing physicians. Few other studies demonstrated that ODE and blended learning may significantly improve learning outcomes compared to self-directed/face-to-face learning. The quality of the evidence in these studies was found to be very low for knowledge. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references100

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Knowledge transfer for the management of dementia: a cluster-randomised trial of blended learning in general practice

          Background The implementation of new medical knowledge into general practice is a complex process. Blended learning may offer an effective and efficient educational intervention to reduce the knowledge-to-practice gap. The aim of this study was to compare knowledge acquisition about dementia management between a blended learning approach using online modules in addition to quality circles (QCs) and QCs alone. Methods In this cluster-randomised trial with QCs as clusters and general practitioners (GPs) as participants, 389 GPs from 26 QCs in the western part of Germany were invited to participate. Data on the GPs' knowledge were obtained at three points in time by means of a questionnaire survey. Primary outcome was the knowledge gain before and after the interventions. A subgroup analysis of the users of the online modules was performed. Results 166 GPs were available for analysis and filled out a knowledge test at least two times. A significant increase of knowledge was found in both groups that indicated positive learning effects of both approaches. However, there was no significant difference between the groups. A subgroup analysis of the GPs who self-reported that they had actually used the online modules showed that they had a significant increase in their knowledge scores. Conclusion A blended learning approach was not superior to a QCs approach for improving knowledge about dementia management. However, a subgroup of GPs who were motivated to actually use the online modules had a gain in knowledge. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36550981.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction

            Background Health systems worldwide are facing shortages in health professional workforce. Several studies have demonstrated the direct correlation between the availability of health workers, coverage of health services, and population health outcomes. To address this shortage, online eLearning is increasingly being adopted in health professionals’ education. To inform policy–making, in online eLearning, we need to determine its effectiveness. Methods We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of online eLearning through a comprehensive search of the major databases for randomised controlled trials that compared online eLearning to traditional learning or alternative learning methods. The search period was from January 2000 to August 2013. We included articles which primarily focused on students' knowledge, skills, satisfaction and attitudes toward eLearning and cost-effectiveness and adverse effects as secondary outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. Due to significant heterogeneity among the included studies, we presented our results as a narrative synthesis. Findings Fifty–nine studies, including 6750 students enrolled in medicine, dentistry, nursing, physical therapy and pharmacy studies, met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the 50 studies testing knowledge gains found significantly higher gains in the online eLearning intervention groups compared to traditional learning, whereas 27 did not detect significant differences or found mixed results. Eleven studies did not test for differences. Six studies detected significantly higher skill gains in the online eLearning intervention groups, whilst 3 other studies testing skill gains did not detect differences between groups and 1 study showed mixed results. Twelve studies tested students' attitudes, of which 8 studies showed no differences in attitudes or preferences for online eLearning. Students' satisfaction was measured in 29 studies, 4 studies showed higher satisfaction for online eLearning and 20 studies showed no difference in satisfaction between online eLearning and traditional learning. Risk of bias was high for several of the included studies. Conclusion The current evidence base suggests that online eLearning is equivalent, possibly superior to traditional learning. These findings present a potential incentive for policy makers to cautiously encourage its adoption, while respecting the heterogeneity among the studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of the instructional efficacy of Internet-based CME with live interactive CME workshops: a randomized controlled trial.

              Despite evidence that a variety of continuing medical education (CME) techniques can foster physician behavioral change, there have been no randomized trials comparing performance outcomes for physicians participating in Internet-based CME with physicians participating in a live CME intervention using approaches documented to be effective. To determine if Internet-based CME can produce changes comparable to those produced via live, small-group, interactive CME with respect to physician knowledge and behaviors that have an impact on patient care. Randomized controlled trial conducted from August 2001 to July 2002. Participants were 97 primary care physicians drawn from 21 practice sites in Houston, Tex, including 7 community health centers and 14 private group practices. A control group of 18 physicians from these same sites received no intervention. Physicians were randomly assigned to an Internet-based CME intervention that could be completed in multiple sessions over 2 weeks, or to a single live, small-group, interactive CME workshop. Both incorporated similar multifaceted instructional approaches demonstrated to be effective in live settings. Content was based on the National Institutes of Health National Cholesterol Education Program--Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Knowledge was assessed immediately before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 12 weeks later. The percentage of high-risk patients who had appropriate lipid panel screening and pharmacotherapeutic treatment according to guidelines was documented with chart audits conducted over a 5-month period before intervention and a 5-month period after intervention. Both interventions produced similar and significant immediate and 12-week knowledge gains, representing large increases in percentage of items correct (pretest to posttest: 31.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 27.0%-35.0%]; pretest to 12 weeks: 36.4% [95% CI, 32.2%-40.6%]; P or =93%) with no significant postintervention change. However, the Internet-based intervention was associated with a significant increase in the percentage of high-risk patients treated with pharmacotherapeutics according to guidelines (preintervention, 85.3%; postintervention, 90.3%; P = .04). Appropriately designed, evidence-based online CME can produce objectively measured changes in behavior as well as sustained gains in knowledge that are comparable or superior to those realized from effective live activities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J. Med. Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                February 2019
                25 February 2019
                : 21
                : 2
                : e13269
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Health Services and Outcomes Research National Healthcare Group Singapore Singapore
                [2 ] Joanna Briggs Institute University of Adelaide Adelaide Australia
                [3 ] Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine Nanyang Technological University Singapore Singapore
                [4 ] Centre for Population Health Sciences Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine Nanyang Technological University Singapore Singapore
                [5 ] Family Medicine and Primary Care Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine Nanyang Technological University Singapore Singapore
                [6 ] Laboratory of Medical Physics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Thessaloníki Greece
                [7 ] Ophthalmology Team Novartis Singapore Singapore
                [8 ] Medical Education Research and Scholarship Unit Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine Nanyang Technological University Singapore Singapore
                [9 ] Department of Learning, Informative, Management and Ethics Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden
                [10 ] 10I Emerging Technologies Lab Mohammed VI University of Health Sciences Casablanca Morocco
                [11 ] Department of Family Medicine Faculty of Medicine University of Ljubljana Ljubljana Slovenia
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Josip Car josip.car@ 123456ntu.edu.sg
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4743-1425
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7986-2970
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1750-0330
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2650-9529
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5153-3654
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6717-4975
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7220-1280
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8414-7664
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8999-6999
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3722-676X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8969-371X
                Article
                v21i2e13269
                10.2196/13269
                6410118
                30801252
                e37c9afd-57cc-4203-9a26-04e899ee6e0e
                ©Pradeep Paul George, Olena Zhabenko, Bhone Myint Kyaw, Panagiotis Antoniou, Pawel Posadzki, Nakul Saxena, Monika Semwal, Lorainne Tudor Car, Nabil Zary, Craig Lockwood, Josip Car. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 25.02.2019.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/.as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 3 January 2019
                : 21 January 2019
                : 29 January 2019
                : 30 January 2019
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                Medicine
                randomized controlled trials,effectiveness,systematic review,medical education,internet
                Medicine
                randomized controlled trials, effectiveness, systematic review, medical education, internet

                Comments

                Comment on this article