MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398174792 · doi:10.1111/vox.13682

E‐learning in transfusion medicine: An exploratory qualitative assessment

2024· article· en· W4398174792 on OpenAlexaff
Arwa Z. Al‐Riyami, Kyle Jensen, Cynthia So‐Osman, Ben Saxon, Naomi Rahimi‐Levene, Soumya Das, Simon Stanworth, Yulia Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransfusion medicineMedicineTransfusion reactionBlood transfusionIntensive care medicineFamily medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: E-learning programmes are increasingly offered in transfusion medicine (TM) education. The aim of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to TM e-learning programmes, including assessment of learning outcomes and measures of effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants selected from a prior survey and representing a diverse number of international e-learning programmes were invited to participate. A mixed methodology was employed, combining a survey and individual semi-structured one-on-one interviews. Interview data were analysed inductively to explore programme development, evaluation, and facilitators and barriers to implementation. RESULTS: Fourteen participants representing 13 institutions participated in the survey and 10 were interviewed. The e-learning programmes have been in use for a variable duration between 5 and 16 years. Funding sources varied, including government and institutional support. Learner assessment methods varied and encompassed multiple-choice-questions (n = 12), direct observation (n = 4) and competency assessment (n = 4). Most regional and national blood collection agencies rely on user feedback and short-term learning assessments to evaluate their programmes. Only one respondent indicated an attempt to correlate e-learning with clinical practices. Factors that facilitated programme implementation included support from management and external audits to ensure compliance with regulatory educational and training requirements. Barriers to programme implementation included the allocation of staff time for in-house development, enforcing compliance, keeping educational content up-to-date and gaining access to outcome data for educational providers. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of considerable diversity in the evaluation of e-learning programmes. Further work is needed to understand the ultimate impact of TM e-learning on transfusion practices and patient outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207