ArticleBMC medical education2026
Embedding digital health education into pre-registration health degrees: a pilot evaluation of a train-the-trainer toolkit.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA digitally-literate and future-ready healthcare workforce is essential to realise the benefits of digital health and address critical healthcare challenges. Embedding digital health content into health degree curricula is a strategic priority, yet integration is hindered by the absence of standardised, professionally endorsed curriculum and limited educator expertise. Following development of an educator toolkit, this pilot evaluation study aimed to explore: "How do educators and academic leaders perceive the appropriateness, usability, usefulness and feasibility of a toolkit designed to support integration of digital health content into pre-registration health curricula?".
methodsA multi-method study was conducted across 17 Australian universities. Data collection conducted with educators involved structured online survey responses (n = 53) using a semi-structured conversation guide in a meeting and, after updating the toolkit with educator feedback, 60-minute online focus groups were conducted with academic leaders (n = 14). Survey responses underwent content and sentiment analysis with manual coding aligned with a pre-defined coding framework, while focus group data were analysed using content analysis.
resultsEducators reported agreement that the toolkit was clear, well-structured, easy to navigate, and potentially effective in increasing their knowledge and confidence. Most statements rated positively for perceived appropriateness, usability, and usefulness. Statements with the highest agreement related to alignment between learning plans and outcomes (98%), educator knowledge and confidence (94%), and ease of navigation (92%). Lowest agreement related to planning assessments aligned with learning outcomes (60%), evaluating student capability (71%), and creating meaningful curriculum (70%). The toolkit was viewed as potentially applicable for multiple stakeholder groups, with greatest relevance for curriculum developers and educators. Academic leaders affirmed its appropriateness and timeliness, highlighting relevance and enthusiasm for future use. Ease of use was attributed to the clarity of topics aligned with learning outcomes and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Five factors influenced feasibility: educator digital health literacy; curriculum and pedagogical guidance; assessment examples; toolkit structure and resources; engagement and evaluation.
conclusionsThe toolkit could provide a practical mechanism for guiding educators and academic leaders in embedding digital health content into curricula within health education programs, supporting development of a future workforce equipped for evolving healthcare demands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.