4.1 Article

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of an e-Learning in Integrative Oncology for Physicians and Students Involving Experts and Learners: Experiences and Recommendations

Journal

JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 805-812

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13187-022-02189-1

Keywords

Integrative oncology; e-Learning; Stakeholder involvement; Blended learning; Cancer; Complementary medicine; Education; Training

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this project, a systematically developed e-Learning program about complementary and integrative medicine in oncology was evaluated using mixed methods. The program led to a significant increase in knowledge and received positive feedback from physicians and students.
In this project, an e-Learning program for complementary and integrative medicine in oncology was systematically developed, implemented, and evaluated in a stepwise procedure. Learning objectives and content were defined within the KOKON project network, considering the educational competencies for integrative oncology. To design a valuable e-Learning, experts were involved in all relevant steps of the process, as well as stakeholders from various target groups (undergraduates: medicine students, postgraduates: oncology physicians). We used mixed methods including quantitative surveys, progress tests, and qualitative focus groups. The developed e-Learning program led to a significant measurable knowledge gain about complementary and integrative medicine. In parallel, physicians and students were subjectively satisfied with the training. For the majority of e-Learning elements, the needs of both target groups are comparable. Furthermore, both groups emphasized the value of formative assessment tools for gaining knowledge. From the various surveys and experiences collected in this project, we derive recommendations for others developing e-Learning programs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available