Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 166

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Digital Education in Health Professions: The Need for Overarching Evidence Synthesis

Open access
Car, Josip, Carlstedt-Duke, Jan, Tudor Car, Lorainne, Posadzki, Pawel, Whiting, Penny, Zary, Nabil, Atun, Rifat, Majeed, Azeem, Campbell, James, Digital Health Education Collaboration·2019·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials of digital health education poses some challenges. These include a lack of clear categorization of digital health education in the literature; constantly evolving concepts, pedagogies, or theories; and a multitude of methods, features, technologies, or delivery settings. The Digital Health Education Collaboration was established to evaluate the evidence on digital education in health professions; inform policymakers, educators, and students; and ultimately, change the way in which these professionals learn and are taught. The aim of this paper is to present the overarching methodology that we use to synthesize evidence across our digital health education reviews and to discuss challenges related to the process. For our research, we followed Cochrane recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews; all reviews are reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidance. This included assembling experts in various digital health education fields; identifying gaps in the evidence base; formulating focused research questions, aims, and outcome measures; choosing appropriate search terms and databases; defining inclusion and exclusion criteria; running the searches jointly with librarians and information specialists; managing abstracts; retrieving full-text versions of papers; extracting and storing large datasets, critically appraising the quality of studies; analyzing data; discussing findings; drawing meaningful conclusions; and drafting research papers. The approach used for synthesizing evidence from digital health education trials is commonly regarded as the most rigorous benchmark for conducting systematic reviews. Although we acknowledge the presence of certain biases ingrained in the process, we have clearly highlighted and minimized those biases by strictly adhering to scientific rigor, methodological integrity, and standard operating procedures. This paper will be a valuable asset for researchers and methodologists undertaking systematic reviews in digital health education.

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 · 10.2196/12913

Cites

7 of 7 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

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1186/s12916-016-0624-4 · DOI
  2. 10.1001/jama.300.10.1181 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1002/chp.1340240105 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.2340/00015555-3068 · DOI
  5. 10.2196/preprints.12998 · doi:10.2196/preprints.12998
  6. 10.2196/preprints.12967 · doi:10.2196/preprints.12967
  7. 10.1186/s12960-018-0305-9 · DOI
  8. 10.2196/preprints.13000 · doi:10.2196/preprints.13000
  9. 10.2196/12997 · DOI
  10. 10.2196/12937 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.2196/preprints.12968 · doi:10.2196/preprints.12968
  12. 10.1016/S0099-1333(99)00123-8 · doi:10.1016/s0099-1333(99)00123-8
  13. 10.2196/preprints.12994 · doi:10.2196/preprints.12994
  14. StuchlíkováLKósaAMassive open online courses - Challenges and solutions in engineering education2013102511th IEEE International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA)2013Slovakia2425 · doi:10.1109/iceta.2013.6674459
  15. 10.7863/ultra.33.8.1349 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.019 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. Crompton, H, 2013, Handbook of Mobile Learning, 3
  20. 10.2196/12895 · DOI
  21. 10.2196/preprints.12945 · doi:10.2196/preprints.12945
  22. 10.4103/0019-5413.30519 · DOI
  23. 10.1136/bmj.331.7523.977 · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7523.977
  24. 10.1136/bmj.327.7418.785 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Cochrane Handbook For Systematic Reviews Of Interventions20082019-01-28Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1001/jama.2011.1234 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1002/jrsm.1239 · DOI
  28. Egger, M, 1997, BMJ, 315, 629, 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · DOI · Paper page
  29. SchünemannJHOxmanADHigginsJPTVistGEGlasziouPGuyattGHCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011), The Cochrane Collaboration2011032019-01-28Presenting Results and ‘Summary of Findings’ Tables https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470712184.ch11 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1002/14651858.CD008273.pub2 · DOI

Cited by

See all 166

Metadata

Authors
Car, J., Carlstedt-Duke, J., Tudor Car, L., Posadzki, P., Whiting, P., Zary, N., Atun, R., Majeed, A., Campbell, J., & Digital Health Education Collaboration
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2019-02-14
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
e12913
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2910506194
Cited by
166
References
7
FWCI
13.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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.