CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 136Innovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Digital health competencies in medical school education: a scoping review and Delphi method study

Open access
Khurana, Mark P., Raaschou-Pedersen, Daniel E., Kurtzhals, Jørgen, Bardram, Jakob E., Ostrowski, Sisse R., Bundgaard, Johan S.·2022·BMC Medical Education
DOI 10.1186/s12909-022-03163-7PMC PMC8881190
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In order to fulfill the enormous potential of digital health in the healthcare sector, digital health must become an integrated part of medical education. We aimed to investigate which knowledge, skills and attitudes should be included in a digital health curriculum for medical students through a scoping review and Delphi method study. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature on digital health relevant for medical education. Key topics were split into three sub-categories: knowledge (facts, concepts, and information), skills (ability to carry out tasks) and attitudes (ways of thinking or feeling). Thereafter, we used a modified Delphi method where experts rated digital health topics over two rounds based on whether topics should be included in the curriculum for medical students on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A predefined cut-off of ≥4 was used to identify topics that were critical to include in a digital health curriculum for medical students. RESULTS: The scoping review resulted in a total of 113 included articles, with 65 relevant topics extracted and included in the questionnaire. The topics were rated by 18 experts, all of which completed both questionnaire rounds. A total of 40 (62%) topics across all three sub-categories met the predefined rating cut-off value of ≥4. CONCLUSION: An expert panel identified 40 important digital health topics within knowledge, skills, and attitudes for medical students to be taught. These can help guide medical educators in the development of future digital health curricula.

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 · 10.1186/s12909-022-03163-7

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Flowchart for articles included in the scoping review
Fig. 1 Flowchart for articles included in the scoping reviewCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Flowchart for inclusion of digital health experts
Fig. 2 Flowchart for inclusion of digital health expertsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Average ratings by the expert panel for digital health knowledge
Fig. 3 Average ratings by the expert panel for digital health knowledgeCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Average ratings by the expert panel for digital health skills
Fig. 4 Average ratings by the expert panel for digital health skillsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Average ratings by the expert panel for digital health attitudes
Fig. 5 Average ratings by the expert panel for digital health attitudesCC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 27 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. National Videnskabsetisk Komité. Hvad skal jeg anmelde. 2020. Available from: https://www.nvk.dk/forsker/naar-du-anmelder/hvilke-projekter-skal-jeg-anmelde.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Khurana, M. P., Raaschou-Pedersen, D. E., Kurtzhals, J., Bardram, J. E., Ostrowski, S. R., & Bundgaard, J. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Technical University of Denmark (DK)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Khurana, Mark P.
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-02-26
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
129-129
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12909-022-03163-7
PMC
PMC8881190
OpenAlex
W4214484266
Cited by
129
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 7
FWCI
5.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
digital health competencies, medical education, medical students, knowledge, skills and attitudes, expert consensus, digital health literacy
MeSH terms
Curriculum, Delphi Technique, Education, Medical, Humans, Schools, Medical, Students, Medical

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