The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Internet-Based Learning in the Health Professions: A Meta-analysis
Abstract
CONTEXT: The increasing use of Internet-based learning in health professions education may be informed by a timely, comprehensive synthesis of evidence of effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effect of Internet-based instruction for health professions learners compared with no intervention and with non-Internet interventions. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, TimeLit, Web of Science, Dissertation Abstracts, and the University of Toronto Research and Development Resource Base from 1990 through 2007. STUDY SELECTION: Studies in any language quantifying the association of Internet-based instruction and educational outcomes for practicing and student physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, and other health care professionals compared with a no-intervention or non-Internet control group or a preintervention assessment. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and abstracted information including characteristics of learners, learning setting, and intervention (including level of interactivity, practice exercises, online discussion, and duration). DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 201 eligible studies. Heterogeneity in results across studies was large (I(2) > or = 79%) in all analyses. Effect sizes were pooled using a random effects model. The pooled effect size in comparison to no intervention favored Internet-based interventions and was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.10; P < .001; n = 126 studies) for knowledge outcomes, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.49-1.20; P < .001; n = 16) for skills, and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63-1.02; P < .001; n = 32) for learner behaviors and patient effects. Compared with non-Internet formats, the pooled effect sizes (positive numbers favoring Internet) were 0.10 (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.32; P = .37; n = 43) for satisfaction, 0.12 (95% CI, 0.003 to 0.24; P = .045; n = 63) for knowledge, 0.09 (95% CI, -0.26 to 0.44; P = .61; n = 12) for skills, and 0.51 (95% CI, -0.24 to 1.25; P = .18; n = 6) for behaviors or patient effects. No important treatment-subgroup interactions were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based learning is associated with large positive effects compared with no intervention. In contrast, effects compared with non-Internet instructional methods are heterogeneous and generally small, suggesting effectiveness similar to traditional methods. Future research should directly compare different Internet-based interventions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Self-citationBarry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500046924 · Cited by 3,966
Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media
Clark, R. E. (1983) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543053004445 · Cited by 2,715
Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.105 · Cited by 2,502
Davis, D., O'Brien, M. A. T., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.867 · Cited by 2,364
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
Mayer, R. E. (2014) · The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139547369.005 · Cited by 1,976
Cited by
Pei, L., & Wu, H. (2019) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2019.1666538 · Cited by 852
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3 · Cited by 870
Cook, D. A., & Reed, D. A. (2015) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000786 · Cited by 781
Self-citationThe Effectiveness of Blended Learning in Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Liu, Q., Peng, W., Zhang, F., Hu, R., Li, Y., & Yan, W. (2016) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4807 · Cited by 691
Social Media Use in Medical Education: A Systematic Review
Cheston, C. C., Flickinger, T. E., & Chisolm, M. S. (2013) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31828ffc23 · Cited by 638
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D. M., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2008-09-10
- Volume
- 300
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1181
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2040168896
- Cited by
- 1,498
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 53.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Internet-Based Learning in the Health Professions: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.300.10.1181
- The paper
- Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D. M., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2008). Internet-Based Learning in the Health Professions: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.10.1181
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.