CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 429Innovations in Medical EducationOnline and Blended LearningE-Learning and COVID-19

Effective e‐learning for health professionals and students—barriers and their solutions. A systematic review of the literature—findings from the HeXL project

Open access
Childs, Sue, Blenkinsopp, Elizabeth, Hall, Amanda, Walton, Graham·2005·Health Information & Libraries Journal
DOI 10.1111/j.1470-3327.2005.00614.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction: In 2003/4 the Information Management Research Institute, Northumbria University, conducted a research project to identify the barriers to e‐learning for health professionals and students. The project also established possible ways to overcome these barriers. The North of England Workforce Development Confederation funded the project. Methodology: The project comprised a systematic review of the literature on barriers to and solutions/critical success factors for e‐learning in the health field. Fifty‐seven references were suitable for analysis. This review was supplemented by a questionnaire survey of learners and an interview study of learning providers to ensure that data identified from the literature were grounded in reality. Results: The main barriers are: requirement for change; costs; poorly designed packages; inadequate technology; lack of skills; need for a component of face‐to‐face teaching; time intensive nature of e‐learning; computer anxiety. A range of solutions can solve these barriers. The main solutions are: standardization; strategies; funding; integration of e‐learning into the curriculum; blended teaching; user friendly packages; access to technology; skills training; support; employers paying e‐learning costs; dedicated work time for e‐learning. Conclusions: The authors argue that librarians can play an important role in e‐learning: providing support and support materials; teaching information skills; managing and providing access to online information resources; producing their own e‐learning packages; assisting in the development of other packages.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1470-3327.2005.00614.x

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Childs, S., Blenkinsopp, E., Hall, A., & Walton, G.
Affiliations
  • Northumbria University (GB)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
Corresponding author
Childs, Sue
ORCID
Venue
Health Information & Libraries Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-11-09
Volume
22
Issue
s2
Pages
20-32
ISSN
  • 1471-1834 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-1842
DOI
10.1111/j.1470-3327.2005.00614.x
OpenAlex
W2114851894
Cited by
429
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 35
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health Information & Libraries Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › E-Learning and COVID-19
Keywords
online learning, barriers to online learning, healthcare workers, health sciences students, success factors, blended learning, face-to-face teaching, computer anxiety, information skills, librarian roles, e-learning costs, curriculum integration
MeSH terms
Communication Barriers, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Curriculum, Education, Medical, United Kingdom, Humans, Libraries, Medical, Quality Control, Software, Program Evaluation, Information Storage and Retrieval, Models, Educational, Efficiency, Organizational, Library Materials, Education, Distance, Internet

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