Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction.
Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction.
复制标题
DOI：
10.7189/jogh.04.010406
复制
发表时间：
2014-06
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Car J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
George PP;Papachristou N;Belisario JM;Wang W;Wark PA;Cotic Z;Rasmussen K;Sluiter R;Riboli-Sasco E;Tudor Car L;Musulanov EM;Molina JA;Heng BH;Zhang Y;Wheeler EL;Al Shorbaji N;Majeed A;Car J
世界各地的卫生系统都面临卫生专业人员短缺的问题。多项研究表明，卫生工作者的可用性、卫生服务的覆盖范围和人口健康结果之间存在直接相关性。为了解决这一短缺问题，卫生专业人员的教育越来越多地采用在线电子学习。为了为政策制定提供信息，在在线电子学习中，我们需要确定其有效性。我们通过全面搜索主要数据库中的随机对照试验，对在线电子学习的有效性进行了系统评价，这些随机对照试验将在线电子学习与传统学习或替代学习方法进行了比较。检索期为2000年1月至2013年8月。我们收录的文章主要关注学生的知识、技能、满意度和对电子学习的态度，以及作为次要结果的成本效益和不利影响。两名评审员独立地从纳入的研究中提取数据。由于纳入的研究之间存在显着的异质性，我们以叙述性综合的形式呈现我们的结果。 59 项研究符合纳入标准，其中包括 6750 名医学、牙科、护理、物理治疗和药学研究的学生。在测试知识增益的 50 项研究中，有 12 项发现，与传统学习相比，在线电子学习干预组的增益明显更高，而 27 项没有发现显着差异或发现结果好坏参半。十一项研究没有测试差异。六项研究发现在线电子学习干预组的技能增益显着提高，而其他 3 项测试技能增益的研究没有发现组间差异，而 1 项研究显示了不同的结果。 12 项研究测试了学生的态度，其中 8 项研究显示学生对在线学习的态度或偏好没有差异。 29 项研究测量了学生的满意度，其中 4 项研究显示在线电子学习的满意度更高，20 项研究显示在线电子学习与传统学习之间的满意度没有差异。纳入的几项研究的偏倚风险很高。当前的证据基础表明，在线电子学习与传统学习相当，甚至可能优于传统学习。这些发现为政策制定者提供了潜在的激励，以谨慎鼓励其采用，同时尊重研究之间的异质性。
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. 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. 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Duggan, Paul M;Palmer, Edward;Devitt, Peter
通讯作者：
Devitt, Peter
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Buzzell, PR;Chamberlain, VM;Pintauro, SJ
通讯作者：
Pintauro, SJ
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Chao, LW;Enokihara, MY;Böhm, GM
通讯作者：
Böhm, GM
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
DeBate, Rita D.;Severson, Herbert H.;Hendricson, William
通讯作者：
Hendricson, William
影响因子：
--
作者：
Arroyo-Morales, Manuel;Cantarero-Villanueva, Irene;Diaz-Rodriguez, Lourdes
通讯作者：
Diaz-Rodriguez, Lourdes