Evaluation of e-learning for medical education in low- and middle-income countries

• Verfasst von: Barteit, Sandra [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Jahn, Albrecht [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Bärnighausen, Till [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Mendes Jorge Müller, Margarida Melo [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Neuhann, Florian [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Evaluation of e-learning for medical education in low- and middle-income countries
• Titelzusatz: A systematic review
• Verf.angabe: Sandra Barteit, Dorota Guzek, Albrecht Jahn, Till Bärnighausen, Margarida Mendes Jorge, Florian Neuhann
• Jahr: 2020
• Jahr des Originals: 2019
• Umfang: 18 S.
• Fussnoten: Available online 7 October 2019 ; Gesehen am 20.01.2020
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Computers & education
• Ort Quelle: Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1976
• Jahr Quelle: 2020
• Band/Heft Quelle: 145(2020) Artikel-Nummer 103726, 18 Seiten
• ISSN Quelle: 1873-782X
• DOI: doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103726
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: Country-specific developments
• Sach-SW: e-learning
• Sach-SW: Evaluation methodologies
• Sach-SW: Evaluation of CAL systems
• Sach-SW: Medical education
• Sach-SW: Post-secondary education
• K10plus-PPN: 1687876509

Abstract

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), e-learning for medical education may alleviate the burden of severe health worker shortages and deliver affordable access to high quality medical education. However, diverse challenges in infrastructure and adoption are encountered when implementing e-learning within medical education in particular. Understanding what constitutes successful e-learning is an important first step for determining its effectiveness. The objective of this study was to systematically review e-learning interventions for medical education in LMICs, focusing on their evaluation and assessment methods. Nine databases were searched for publications from January 2007 to June 2017. We included 52 studies with a total of 12,294 participants. Most e-learning interventions were pilot studies (73%), which mainly employed summative assessments of study participants (83%) and evaluated the e-learning intervention with questionnaires (45%). Study designs, evaluation and assessment methods showed considerable variation, as did the study quality, evaluation periods, outcome and effectiveness measures. Included studies mainly utilized subjective measures and custom-built evaluation frameworks, which resulted in both low comparability and poor validity. The majority of studies self-concluded that they had had an effective e-learning intervention, thus indicating potential benefits of e-learning for LMICs. However, MERSQI and NOS ratings revealed the low quality of the studies' evidence for comparability, evaluation instrument validity, study outcomes and participant blinding. Many e-learning interventions were small-scale and conducted as short-termed pilots. More rigorous evaluation methods for e-learning implementations in LMICs are needed to understand the strengths and shortcomings of e-learning for medical education in low-resource contexts. Valid and reliable evaluations are the foundation to guide and improve e-learning interventions, increase their sustainability, alleviate shortages in health care workers and improve the quality of medical care in LMICs.