Evidence mapPaperPMID 33704073Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2021

Exploring the Cost of eLearning in Health Professions Education: Scoping Review.

Edward Meinert, Jessie Eerens, Christina Banks, Stephen Maloney, George Rivers, Dragan Ilic, Kieran Walsh, Azeem Majeed, Josip Car

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Edward MeinertDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2484-3347
Jessie EerensDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7490-9829
Christina BanksDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4927-7601
Stephen MaloneyDepartment of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2612-5162
George RiversFaculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7262-2587
Dragan IlicMedical Education Research and Quality, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5127-9185
Kieran WalshBMJ Knowledge Centre, BMJ Learning, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1268-4676
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2357-9858
Josip CarDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8969-371X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExisting research on the costs associated with the design and deployment of eLearning in health professions education is limited. The relative costs of these learning platforms to those of face-to-face learning are also not well understood. The lack of predefined costing models used for eLearning cost data capture has made it difficult to complete cost evaluation.

objectiveThe key aim of this scoping review was to explore the state of evidence concerning cost capture within eLearning in health professions education. The review explores the available data to define cost calculations related to eLearning.

methodsThe scoping review was performed using a search strategy with Medical Subject Heading terms and related keywords centered on eLearning and cost calculation with a population scope of health professionals in all countries. The search was limited to articles published in English. No restriction was placed on literature publication date.

resultsIn total, 7344 articles were returned from the original search of the literature. Of these, 232 were relevant to associated keywords or abstract references following screening. Full-text review resulted in 168 studies being excluded. Of these, 61 studies were excluded because they were unrelated to eLearning and focused on general education. In addition, 103 studies were excluded because of lack of detailed information regarding costs; these studies referred to cost in ways either indicating cost favorability or unfavorability, but without data to support findings. Finally, 4 studies were excluded because of limited cost data that were insufficient for analysis. In total, 42 studies provided data and analysis of the impact of cost and value in health professions education. The most common data source was total cost of training (n=29). Other sources included cost per learner, referring to the cost for individual students (n=13). The population most frequently cited was medical students (n=15), although 12 articles focused on multiple populations. A further 22 studies provide details of costing approaches for the production and delivery of eLearning. These studies offer insight into the ways eLearning has been budgeted and project-managed through implementation.

conclusionsAlthough cost is a recognized factor in studies detailing eLearning design and implementation, the way cost is captured is inconsistent. Despite a perception that eLearning is more cost-effective than face-to-face instruction, there is not yet sufficient evidence to assert this conclusively. A rigorous, repeatable data capture method is needed, in addition to a means to leverage existing economic evaluation methods that can then test eLearning cost-effectiveness and how to implement eLearning with cost benefits and advantages over traditional instruction.

Indexed as

costs and cost analysisdistance educationeconomicseducationonline educationonline learningprofessional education

Identifiers

PMID33704073
PMCPMC8081275

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.