Table 1 Outline of studies included in review
From: Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education – an integrative review
Citation | Location | Study Design | Sampling Size | Data Collection Methods | Survey information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bury, R.., Martin, L. & Roberts, S [27] “Achieving change through mutual development: supported online learning and the evolving roles of health and information professionals” | England, UK | Descriptive | 3 participants | Literature review, interviews & tutorial programme –Triangulation | N/A |
Dyrbye, L., Cumyn, A., Day, H. & Heflin, M. [20] “A Qualitative study of physicians’ experiences with online learning in a master’s degree program: Benefits, challenges, and proposed solutions” | Chicago, USA | Descriptive | 71 participants – Physicians pursing a degree in higher education with online learning | Email survey with a mixed method analysis. Participation was elective. | Survey consisted of 4 structured / closed items and three open-ended items. Open-ended questions related to experiences with online courses. Closed item questions related to demographics, number of courses taken online and computing skills. |
Skye, E., Wimsatt, L., Master-Hunter, T & Locke, A [28] “Developing Online Learning Modules in a Family Medicine Residency” | Michigan, USA | Descriptive | 16 participants – Participants were made up of 12 faculty members and 4 residents | Web-based surveys, participant observation focus groups and pre-testing/post-testing & module evaluation | Survey consisted of 14 items with 30 evaluative statements regarding satisfaction with development process, training provided and We b authoring software. Six statements relating to author self-competence and motivation to develop modules in the future were also included. A Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = very difficult to 4 = very easy was used. Nine statements related to the level of difficulty authors faced were also included. These were scaled 1-very difficult to 1 = very easy. Questions were both open and close-ended. |
Maloney, S., Haas, R., Keating, J., Molloy, E., Jolly, B., Sims, J., Morgan, P. & Haines, T (2014) “Breakeven, cost benefit, cost effectiveness, and willingness to pay for web based versus face to face education delivery for health professionals” | Victoria, Australia | Experimental | 46 participants | Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) | N/A |
Brueckner, J. & Gould, D [23] “Health Science Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Curricular Integration: Insights and Obstacles” | Kentucky, USA | Descriptive | 44 participants- Participants were 34 clinicians and 10 educators | Surveys at two locations | Nine item survey – gauged the perceptions of faculty regarding curricular integration in their program. Questions asked about participants’ programs current level of integration, their individual interest in increasing integration and potential solutions that could increase integration. Items were rated on a Likert scale, 1 = low interest, 5 = high interest. Questions were both open and close ended. |
Niebuhr. V., Niebuhr, B., Trumble, J & Urbani M.J. [19] “Online Faculty Developments for Creating E-Learning Materials” | Texas, USA | Descriptive | 27 participants- Participants were health professional educators across schools of medicine, nursing, health professionals and graduate studies | Survey & Interviews | Evaluation surveys were completed on each curriculum unit with Likert-scales, 1- strongly agreed to 5 = strongly disagree, using Survey Monkey. Questions were both open and close-ended. |
Bediang, G., Stoll, B., Geissbuhler, A., Klohn, A.M., Stuckelberger, A., Nko’o, S & Chastonay, P [9] “Computer literacy and E-learning perception in Cameroon: the case of Yaounde Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences” | Cameroon, Africa | Descriptive - Cross- sectional study | 1435 participants – Participants consisted of 1000 students, 275 residents and 160 lecturers | Survey | Survey was based on a validated questionnaire developed by University of Geneva. Written questionnaire was collected. Questionnaire designed to have 89 questions for lecturers and 74 for residents and students. Questions gathered information regarding access to internet, mastery of computer and medical information research strategies and knowledge and perception of e-learning.. These were both multiple choice and ranking Likert-scale style questions. These were all close-ended questions. |
Attardi, S. & Rogers K (2014) “Design and implementation of an online systemic human anatomy course with laboratory” | Western University, Ontario, Canada | Evaluation | 365 face to face students and 40 online students interacting with anatomy teaching assistants | Analysis of grade – incoming average grades and final anatomy grade average | N/A |
Perlman, L., Christner, J., Ross, P. & Lypson, M [21] “A Successful Faculty Development Program for Implementing a Sociocultural ePortfolio Assessment Tool” | Michigan, USA | Qualitative and evaluation – More focus on the tool | Faculty mentors selected by sociocultural course director | 3 Faculty workshops – focus groups | N/A |
Mayer, B., Ring, C., Muche, R., Rothenbacher, D & Schmidt- Strasburger, U [35] “Creating a blended learning module in an online master study programme in oncology” | Ulm, Germany | Quantitative & Evaluation | Participants are qualified medical doctors or researchers of biomedical areas related to oncology | Evaluation of lectures – student evaluations | N/A |