Efficacy of adaptive e-learning for health professionals and students : a systematic review and meta-analysis
Fiche du document
15 janvier 2024
- handle: 10670/1.9pkxoo
- doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025252
Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International , https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.fr
Sujets proches
School life Students--Education Pupils Student life and customs Wellness Personal health Biography--HealthCiter ce document
Guillaume Fontaine et al., « Efficacy of adaptive e-learning for health professionals and students : a systematic review and meta-analysis », Papyrus : le dépôt institutionnel de l'Université de Montréal, ID : 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025252
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
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 10 569 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