Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,498

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

Cook, David A., Levinson, Anthony J., Garside, Sarah, Dupras, Denise M., Erwin, Patricia J., Montori, Victor M.·2008·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.300.10.1181
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.300.10.1181

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 12 references

Cited by

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
DOI
10.1001/jama.300.10.1181
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

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.