Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Protocol

Choice of outcomes and measurement instruments in randomised trials on eLearning in medical education: a systematic mapping review protocol

Authors: Gloria C. Law, Christian Apfelbacher, Pawel P. Posadzki, Sandra Kemp, Lorainne Tudor Car

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There will be a lack of 18 million healthcare workers by 2030. Multiplying the number of well-trained healthcare workers through innovative ways such as eLearning is highly recommended in solving this shortage. However, high heterogeneity of learning outcomes in eLearning systematic reviews reveals a lack of consistency and agreement on core learning outcomes in eLearning for medical education. In addition, there seems to be a lack of validity evidence for measurement instruments used in these trials. This undermines the credibility of these outcome measures and affects the ability to draw accurate and meaningful conclusions. The aim of this research is to address this issue by determining the choice of outcomes, measurement instruments and the prevalence of measurement instruments with validity evidence in randomised trials on eLearning for pre-registration medical education.

Methods

We will conduct a systematic mapping and review to identify the types of outcomes, the kinds of measurement instruments and the prevalence of validity evidence among measurement instruments in eLearning randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in pre-registration medical education. The search period will be from January 1990 until August 2017. We will consider studies on eLearning for health professionals’ education. Two reviewers will extract and manage data independently from the included studies. Data will be analysed and synthesised according to the aim of the review.

Discussion

Appropriate choice of outcomes and measurement tools is essential for ensuring high-quality research in the field of eLearning and eHealth. The results of this study could have positive implications for other eHealth interventions, including (1) improving quality and credibility of eLearning research, (2) enhancing the quality of digital medical education and (3) informing researchers, academics and curriculum developers about the types of outcomes and validity evidence for measurement instruments used in eLearning studies. The protocol aspires to assist in the advancement of the eLearning research field as well as in the development of high-quality healthcare professionals’ digital education.

Systematic review registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Anand S, Barnighausen T. Human resources and health outcomes: cross-country econometric study. Lancet. 2004;634:1603–9.CrossRef Anand S, Barnighausen T. Human resources and health outcomes: cross-country econometric study. Lancet. 2004;634:1603–9.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, Fineberg H, Garcia P, Ke Y, Kelley P. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376:1923–58.CrossRefPubMed Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, Fineberg H, Garcia P, Ke Y, Kelley P. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376:1923–58.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Guri-Rosenblit S. ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: not the same thing. High Educ. 2005;49:467–93.CrossRef Guri-Rosenblit S. ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: not the same thing. High Educ. 2005;49:467–93.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Ossiannilsson E, Williams K, Camilleri AF, Brown M. Quality models in online and open education around the globe: state of the art and recommendations: ERIC; 2015. Ossiannilsson E, Williams K, Camilleri AF, Brown M. Quality models in online and open education around the globe: state of the art and recommendations: ERIC; 2015.
8.
go back to reference 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. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014;4(1):010406. 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. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014;4(1):010406.
9.
go back to reference Gruppen LD, Burkhardt JC, Fitzgerald JT, Funnell M, Haftel HM, Lypson ML, Mullan PB, Santen SA, Sheets KJ, Stalburg CM. Competency-based education: programme design and challenges to implementation. Med Educ. 2016;50:532–9.CrossRefPubMed Gruppen LD, Burkhardt JC, Fitzgerald JT, Funnell M, Haftel HM, Lypson ML, Mullan PB, Santen SA, Sheets KJ, Stalburg CM. Competency-based education: programme design and challenges to implementation. Med Educ. 2016;50:532–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50–63.CrossRefPubMed McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50–63.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference McDonald M. Systematic assessment of learning outcomes: developing multiple-choice exams. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2002. McDonald M. Systematic assessment of learning outcomes: developing multiple-choice exams. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2002.
14.
go back to reference American Educational Research Association. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association; 2014. American Educational Research Association. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association; 2014.
15.
go back to reference Cook DA, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Hatala R. Technology-enhanced simulation to assess health professionals: a systematic review of validity evidence, research methods, and reporting quality. Acad Med. 2013;88:872–83.CrossRefPubMed Cook DA, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Hatala R. Technology-enhanced simulation to assess health professionals: a systematic review of validity evidence, research methods, and reporting quality. Acad Med. 2013;88:872–83.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Ratanawongsa N, Thomas PA, Marinopoulos SS, Dorman T, Wilson LM, Ashar BH, Magaziner JL, Miller RG, Prokopowicz GP, Qayyum R. The reported validity and reliability of methods for evaluating continuing medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2008;83:274–83.CrossRefPubMed Ratanawongsa N, Thomas PA, Marinopoulos SS, Dorman T, Wilson LM, Ashar BH, Magaziner JL, Miller RG, Prokopowicz GP, Qayyum R. The reported validity and reliability of methods for evaluating continuing medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2008;83:274–83.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Kane MT. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. J Educ Meas. 2013;50:1–73.CrossRef Kane MT. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. J Educ Meas. 2013;50:1–73.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference World Health Organization: WHO traditional medicine strategy 2002–2005. 2002. World Health Organization: WHO traditional medicine strategy 2002–2005. 2002.
19.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. COSMIN checklist manual. Amsterdam: University Medical Center; 2012. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. COSMIN checklist manual. Amsterdam: University Medical Center; 2012.
Metadata
Title
Choice of outcomes and measurement instruments in randomised trials on eLearning in medical education: a systematic mapping review protocol
Authors
Gloria C. Law
Christian Apfelbacher
Pawel P. Posadzki
Sandra Kemp
Lorainne Tudor Car
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0739-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Systematic Reviews 1/2018 Go to the issue