4.6 Article

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

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025252

关键词

Computer-assisted instruction; medical education; nursing education; e-learning; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship (Canadian Institutes of Health Research)
  2. Quebec's Healthcare Research Fund
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Canadian Nurses Foundation
  5. Montreal Heart Institute Foundation
  6. Quebec's Ministry of Higher Education
  7. Faculty of Nursing at the University of Montreal
  8. Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
  9. Center for Innovation in Nursing Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 10569 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

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据