MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1504443159 · doi:10.18438/b83s3r

Despite Barriers, Education Providers, Health Professionals, and Students Perceive E-Learning to Be an Effective Method of Education

2006· article· en· W1504443159 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Lorie A. Kloda

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueWeb and Library Services
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCINAHLPhoneMedical educationMEDLINEMedicineQualitative researchHealth careNursingPsychologySociologySocial sciencePsychological intervention

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A review of: Childs, Sue, Elizabeth Blenkinsopp, Amanda Hall, and Graham Walton. “Effective E-Learning for Health Professionals and Students—Barriers and Their Solutions. A Systematic Review of the Literature—Findings from the HeXL Project.” Health Information & Libraries Journal 22.S2 (2005): 20-32. Objective – To determine barriers or problems and possible solutions related to e-learning, and to determine the effectiveness of e-learning among health professionals and students. Design – Systematic review of qualitative literature, in addition to interviews and questionnaires, to allow for triangulation of the data. Setting – “The HeXL Project: Surmounting the Barriers to NHS E-Learning in the North-East.” The National Health Service (NHS) in the North-East of England, from May 2003 to March 2004. Subjects – A systematic review of 57 qualitative studies on health and e-learning, phone interviews with 13 managers and trainers, and 149 questionnaires completed by users and non-users of e-learning. All participants of the interviews and questionnaires were staff and students of the NHS in the North-East of England. Methods – The study used three methods to collect data to meet the objectives of the study. For the systematic review, the databases AMED (Allied and Alternative Medicine), ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences), CINAHL (Nursing and Allied Health), ERIC (Education), HMIC (health Management), LISA (Library and Information Sciences), PubMed (Medline), and Web of Science were searched using the terms “e-learning” or “computer assisted instruction”, and “health”, and “barriers.” Any type of research or comprehensive literature review was selected from the results to be included in analysis. Based on the findings from the systematic review, a semi-structured interview schedule was developed for use in phone interviews to be conducted with managers or e-learning trainers. Also based on the systematic review, questionnaires were developed and distributed to users and non-users of e-learning. The three methods permitted triangulation of the data. Main results – The search produced 161 results of which 57 met the methodological criteria. The 57 studies categorized e-learning barriers and solutions into eight different issues: organizational, economics, hardware, software, support, pedagogical, psychological, and skills. Results from the interviews and questionnaires mirrored those of the systematic review. Barriers to e-learning included managing change, lack of skills, costs, absence of face-to-face learning, and time commitment. Solutions to the barriers of e-learning included blended learning, better design, skills training, removal of costs, and improved access to technology. There were, however, some discrepancies between the results from the systematic review and the interviews and questionnaires: barriers due to “lack of access to technology” (29) were not perceived as serious, suggested solutions did not include better communication and scheduling, and the solutions to provide trainer incentives and employment admission criteria were rejected. Users and potential users of e-learning mentioned one solution not found in the review: protected time during work to partake in e-learning. Results from the interviews and questionnaires demonstrated that managers, trainers, and learners thought e-learning to be effective. Conclusion – The researchers answered the study’s questions to determine the perceived barriers and solutions to e-learning for the NHS in the North-East of England. Despite the barriers identified, it was also determined from the interviews conducted and questionnaires returned that managers, trainers, and learners perceive e-learning as an effective method of education for health professionals and students. Further research is needed to determine whether this perception is correct. The systematic review of the literature identified important “factors which need to be in place” for e-learning to effectively take place (29). The barriers and potential solutions identified are useful for those designing e-learning programs in any professional context. The results point to several requirements for e-learning success: national standards and strategies; curriculum integration; change management; flexible programming; skills training; and support and access to technology for managers, learners, and trainers. The authors of the article believe that librarians play an important role in e-learning and identify several areas in which librarians can contribute.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,026
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,026
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,137

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0260,062
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0070,008
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,319
Écart entre enseignants0,312 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2006
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetWeb and Library ServicesTravaux en français237 207