From: A systematic review of health sciences students’ online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic
Study | Intervention (what used, who involved) | Assessment tool | Comparison | Study design | Findings | Kirkpatrick |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Al-Balas et al. (2020) [33] | OL; UG medical students from all medical universities in Jordan | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 652) Cross-sectional study | 55.9% agreed that OL had many advantages, such as interaction between learners and instructors, 62.1% agreed that there was poor interaction between learners and instructors, 48.3% reported low quality of teaching and 69.1% reported internet problem | 1 |
Alqurshi (2020) [34] | OL; UG pharmacy students from institutions in Saudi Arabia | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 703) Cross-sectional study | More than 20% were having problems with an internet connection, 35% agreed that student-instructor interaction was very limited. 35% agreed that it was harder for them to concentrate in OL, 35% of the students reported having problems gaining knowledge and laboratory skills | 1 |
Alsoufi et al. (2020) [35] | OL; UG medical students from all medical universities in Libyan | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 3348) Cross-sectional study | 54.1% believed that interactive discussion can be achieved via OL. 21.1% agreed that OL could be applied in clinical training, while 54.8% disagreed with the statement, 24% were neutral | 1 |
Amir et al. (2020) [36] | OL; UG dental students from Dentistry faculty in Indonesia | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 301) Cross-sectional study | 52.6% agreed OL provides a more proactive learning method, 87.6% provide more time to study, and 87.3% agreed that OL gives them more time to review their study material. | 1 |
Anwar et al. (2021) [37] | OL; UG medical and dental students from CMH Lahore Medical College | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 283) Cross-sectional study | 38.2% believed that OL provided flexibility. 31.4% believed that OL saved time. 33.2% disagreed that OL improved communication between students and lecturers. 79% of students agreed that they had access to technological equipment, while 83.8% felt that OL is appropriate during pandemic | 1 |
Bączek et al. (2021) [38] | OL; UG medical students from Polish | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 804) Cross-sectional study | 69% like OL due to ability to stay at home, 69% agreed that they had continuous access to OL material and 64% agreed that OL provides the opportunity to self-study. 54% reported having technical problem, and 70% believed that there was less interaction between medical students and patients | 1 |
Chandrasinghe et al. (2020) [39] | OL; UG medical students from Sri Lanka | Online questionnaire | Traditional discussion | (N = 1047) Cross-sectional study | 87% agreed that they gained many advantages. 83.4% agreed that OL helped in their clinical practices, and 79.3% believed that OL helped them build interest in clinical medicine. -31% complained about having internet problems, 25% having problems joining the OL | 1 |
Co et al. (2021) [26] | OL; UG medical students in Hong Kong university | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 62) Case–control study | Obstacles—lack of f2f interaction, internet connectivity, and different time zone (overseas students). Benefits includes able to demonstrate the skill easily, | 3 |
Coffey et al. (2020) [40] | OL; UG medical students from the School of Medicine at UC San Diego | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 132) Cross-sectional study | Most students had good internet connectivity, only 11% reported internet problem. Students reported flexibility in OL and increase engagement. Barrier includesdifficulties in time management, lacking clinical experience and anxiety | 1 |
De Ponti et al. (2020) [41] | OL; UG medical students from the University of Insubria | Online questionnaire | Traditional training | (N = 115) Cross-sectional study | 77% agreed that OL was very effective in the clinical assessment, 94% agreed it could be used in diagnosis, and 81% agreed that it could be used in treatment management. 28% believed that OL is quite difficult to implement due to technical issues | 1 |
Dost et al. (2020) [42] | OL; UG medical students from 39 medical schools in the United Kingdom | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 2721) Cross-sectional study | 19.82% agreed it could save time, 19.52% agreed it provided flexibility, 14.24% agreed it could save some costs. Disadvantages include family distraction (26.76%), internet connectivity problems (21.53%), anxiety (17.31%) and lack of space (11.03%) | 1 |
Elsalem et al. (2021) [43] | OL; UG students from Jordan University of Science and Technology | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 730) Cross-sectional study | 68.22% preferred f2f exam, 1/3 preferred online exam. 49.86% agreed that more hard work and time were required in preparation for the online exam. 62.33% reported they did not achieve their objectives in their study | 1 |
Jaap et al. (2021) [29] | OL; UG medical students from UK medical school | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 447) Cross-sectional study | 18.5% had problems finding a good environment to sit for their exam, and 84% had very good internet connection. 51.3% reported feeling anxious before the exam because they were afraid about their internet connection issues | 2 |
Guiter et al. (2021) [44] | OL; UG medical students from Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 29) Cross-sectional study | Students felt that OL provides easier ability to communicate, which leads them to engage more easily. The environment at home is more relaxing and saves time. Barrier- internet connectivity problems | 1 |
Gupta et al. (2021) [45] | OL; UG medical students from the Delhi-NCR region | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 248) Cross-sectional study | 41.2% agreed that OL could provide flexibility in time and place. Few challenges include 35.9% internet connectivity problem, 29.8% reduce interaction, 27.1% problem with the sound and lack of clinical skills | 1 |
Ibrahim et al. (2021) [46] | OL; UG medical students from King Abdul Aziz University | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 340) Cross-sectional study | 59.7% agreed that OL could replace f2f. 59.2% also feel like OL was less time-consuming than f2f teaching.74.6% agreed that interaction during OL was present between instructors and students, and 54.1% of students agreed that the OL could make them felt motivated. 84.2% agreed OL would affect their clinical skill. 72.1% agreed that their exams could be affected due to internet connectivity problems. 57% agreed that there are limited resources, 32.2% agreed they had technology problem | 1 |
JimĂ©nez-RodrĂguez et al. (2020) [47] | OL; UG nursing students from University in Almeria—Spain | Online questionnaire | Traditional practical | (N = 93) Cross-sectional study | Students rated 100% in practical utility, 49.4% agreed they had improved their technical skills, and 63.43% agreed that this helps them in their clinical practices | 3 |
Khalil et al. (2020) [19] | OL; UG medical students from Unaizah College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Saudi Arabia | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 60) Qualitative study | OL has many benefits, such as saving time, flexibility but in practicing those techniques, some of them also encountered many disadvantages such as internet connectivity, behavioral challenges, and communication problems | 1 |
Khan et al. (2021) [21] | OL; UG medical students from North India | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 103) Mixed study | Students reported that the OL was very enjoyable, engaging, and motivated them to learn. The disadvantage was lacking practical skill classes, technical issues such as internet connectivity, lack of interaction, and hard to learn how to adapt to the new online stuff | 1 |
Kim et al. (2020) [48] | OL; UG medical students from Seoul National University | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 456) Cross-sectional study | OL vs offline: 63% vs 29%. 75% preferred recorded video to live online (11.3%) | 1 |
Kumar et al. (2020) [49] | OL; UG medical students from Medical School in Arabian | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | Cross-sectional study | 96% agreed that the online communication was very clear, 85% can maintain the online interactivity, and 92% were interested in continuing with the OL even after the pandemic. 74% of the students agreed that all the software is very user-friendly. few problems mentioned by students, which include limited interaction and clinical training problems | 1 |
Langegård et al. (2021) [22] | OL; UG nursing students from Gothenburg University | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 132) Cross-sectional study | 18% reported having technical difficulties with OL. 2/3 students reported having communication problem,. The students reported OL impacts their motivation in learning. More than 50% reported having problem with their study discipline (hard for them to track everything, especially when they are at home) | 1 |
Mahdy (2020) [50] | OL; UG veterinary students from 92 different countries | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 1392) Cross-sectional study | Scoring obtained for OL was 5.1 ± 2.4 while for OL practical was 3.6 ± 2.6. Benefits- more convenient and flexible, more time available and save time. Barriers—availability of learning devices, harder to teach in practical, shortness of time and the availability of internet for people who lives in a rural area | 1 |
Martinez et al. (2020) [30] | OL; UG medical students from Florida Atlantic University | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 47) Cross-sectional study | Students felt that OL was relevant to their medical education. Students reported that these sessions helped them in their exam. They also agreed OL helped them increased interaction even though there were some technical problems | 2 |
Menon et al. (2021) [51] | OL; UG medical students from college hospital in South India | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 370) Cross-sectional study | The OL barriers reported were connectivity problems, (44.8%) and lack of peer interaction | 1 |
Merson et al. (2020) [52] | OL; UG equine science course | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 44) Cross-sectional study | Positive feedback on OL, but still, based on Bayesian inference for ANOVA, most of the undergraduates still prefer in-person lessons (P < 0.05) | 1 |
Muflih et al. (2021) [53] | OL; UG health science students from Jordanian universities | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 1210) Cross-sectional study | 66.8% agreed that OL made them felt comfortable communicating with their instructors and instructors, 62.6% agreed that the instructor responded quickly to their question. Barriers—75.1% agreed to lack of technical experience, 74.3% lack of experience on online tools, 57.4% lack of motivation, and 62.7% inability to networking | 1 |
Olum et al. (2020)[27[ | OL; UG medical and nursing students from Makerere University, Uganda | Online questionnaire | Blended learning | (N = 221) Cross-sectional study | Higher interaction (96.3%) in OL. However, 60% believed that they need to train themselves with the OL tools. Barriers -internet problems (93%), poor internet connectivity (84%), lack of OL skills (50%), and technical problems (35%) | 1 |
Puljak et al. (2020) [54] | OL; UG health sciences students from 9 Croatia universities | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 2520) Cross-sectional study | 48.5% agreed that they were equally motivated in OL compared to f2f, 43.4% felt connected with each other. Most students prefer to combine f2f and OL in the future | 1 |
Rajab et al. (2020) [55] | OL; UG medical students | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 139) Cross-sectional study | 59% had communication problems, 57.5% had problems in assessment, 35.5% stated learning curve, 48% reported anxiety and stress, 17% were technophobia, | 1 |
Sandhaus et al. (2020) [56] | OL; UG medical students from Adelson School of Medicine | Online questionnaire and telephone interview | Traditional learning | (N = 70) Cross-sectional study | quality of teaching was rated high at 85.7%, training and technical assistance were rated high at 87.2%. Barriers -61.5% reported having technical difficulties during OL | 1 |
Sawarkar et al. (2020) [28] | OL; UG medical students from Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery | Online questionnaire | Blended learning | (N = 189) Cross-sectional study | 58.9% supported OL, while 33.9% were neutral. Few challenges include misconceptions, language barriers, and problem with terminologies. 54% agreed that OL engagement, increase motivation, and build their interest. However, only 37.6% supported OL | 1 |
Schoenfeld-Tacher & Dorman (2021) [31] | OL; UG veterinary students from North Carolina State University | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 103) Cross-sectional study | Students (52.6%) agreed that the OL performs almost the same with f2f, 15.8% thought OL was better. Benefits, include increased motivation and flexibility of time and place. Challenges include internet problem and lack of instructor-student interaction | 2 |
Shahrvini et al. (2021) [57] | OL; UG medical students from the University of California San Diego | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 268) Cross-sectional study | 64.4% stated OL gave flexibility, 18% felt OL may cause digital fatigue, inability to focus and disengagement, 50.8% felt problems in obtaining clinical skills, and 16.7% reported feeling of loneliness | 1 |
Sindiani et al. (2020) [58] | OL; UG medical student from Jordan university | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 3700) Cross-sectional study | 48.7% felt less interaction with the instructors. Benefits include saving money and energy in terms of transportation (48.7%) and less social contact thus reduced virus spreading (58.3%). Barriers include no interaction with lecturers (45.6%), technical problems (57.7%), no clinical practices (43.9%) and distraction at home (36.4%) | 1 |
Suliman et al. (2021) [20] | OL; UG nursing students from 2 universities at Jordan | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 18) Qualitative study | Students expressed worries. More time required to adapt to OL. Distraction at home was a major problem, financial burdens, lack of interaction and lack of clinical skills were mentioned. Benefits include watching the recorded lecture repeatedly, spending more time with their families, saving time, and feeling more relaxed | 1 |
Tigaa & Sonawane (2020) [59] | OL; UG health sciences students at St. Cloud USA and College in Dhule in India | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 150) Cross-sectional study | 49% students from Dhule and 63% students from St. Cloud had problems with internet connectivity. 15% from Dhule and 57% from St. Cloud did not have enough electric supply to continue OL | 1 |
Tuma et al. (2021) [60] | OL; UG medical students from Wasit University College of Medicine in Iraq | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 636) Cross-sectional study | 67% felt OL was difficult. 27% reported that OL met their expectations, while 67% reported not being interested and fatigued while participating in OL. Barrier- poor internet connection, unfamiliar with the OL platform, and audio-visual media quality | 1 |
Wang et al. (2021) [61] | OL; UG dental students from 42 dental universities in mainland China | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | (N = 8740) Cross-sectional study | 66% agreed on increased interaction with lecturers, 88% agreed on the OL homework, 92% agreed on the OL material and 92% agreed on the effective time management. Barriers include network instability (62%), platform instability (33%), lack of learning motivation (72%), insufficient online learning ability (31%), lack of leaners-instructors interaction (59%) and others (8%) | 1 |
Yoo et al. (2021) [62] | OL; UG medical students from Korea University College of Medicine | Online questionnaire | Traditional learning | N = 108 (2020) N = 104 (2019) Cross-sectional study | Most (89.5%) agreed that OL saved more time. 75% used that free time for self-study. Students (76.3%) repeatedly watched the recorded video. 60.5% stated that they had more available time. Barriers include internet problem (61.9%), and communication problems (50%) | 1 |