Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39223555›Full record

SynthesisHuman resources for health2024

Effectiveness of eLearning programme for capacity building of healthcare professionals: a systematic review.

Gifty Francisca Ben Aryee, Mustapha Amoadu, Paul Obeng, Hammond Nii Sarkwah, Ebenezer Malcalm, Susanna Aba Abraham, Jones Abekah Baah, Dorcas Frempomaa Agyare, Nartey Edmond Banafo, Daprim Ogaji

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human resources for health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors.

Gifty Francisca Ben AryeeDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria.
Mustapha AmoaduDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Paul ObengDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana. obengpaul155@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5564-9240
Hammond Nii SarkwahComputer Science Department, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana.
Ebenezer MalcalmSchool of Graduate Studies and Research, Ghana Communication Technology University, Accra, Ghana.
Susanna Aba AbrahamDepartment of Public Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Jones Abekah BaahDepartment of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Dorcas Frempomaa AgyareDepartment of Public Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Nartey Edmond BanafoDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria.
Daprim OgajiAfrican Centre of Excellence in Public Health and Toxicological Research (ACE-PUTOR), University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of eLearning in enhancing healthcare professionals' capacity has received substantial attention globally. This review sought to synthesis evidence on the effectiveness of various types of eLearning programmes, and the facilitators and barriers to its use.

methodsThe review was guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four main databases (PubMed, Web of Science, JSTOR, and Scopus) in July 2023 and 44 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The JBI critical appraisal checklist was used to appraise the methodological quality of the studies. The data were examined using narrative review to determine the effectiveness of the intervention as well as the barriers and facilitators to its use.

resultsThis review found that asynchronous, synchronous, blended, and self-learning methodologies are effective eLearning approaches for continuous professional development. Previous positive experiences, user-friendly interfaces and relevance of the eLearning content to daily practice are critical elements that facilitate eLearning usage. Poor computer competence and literacy, lack of personal computers and high family duties were the main personal factors that hindered eLearning use. Some systemic barriers included; heavy workloads, shortage of specialised eLearning facilitators poor management involvement, and technical inadequacies within the ICT departments. Environmental issues such as poor infrastructure, including limited internet and frequent power outages acted as barriers.

conclusionThe review highlights the effectiveness of various eLearning approaches among health professionals and presents the disparities between developing and developed economies in relation to the facilitators and barriers.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingHealth PersonnelComputer-Assisted InstructionEducation, DistanceHumansBarriersCapacity buildingEffectivenesseLearningHealthcare professionals

Identifiers

PMID39223555
PMCPMC11367904

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.