Cited by 107Innovations in Medical EducationOnline and Blended LearningHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Breakeven, Cost Benefit, Cost Effectiveness, and Willingness to Pay for Web-Based Versus Face-to-Face Education Delivery for Health Professionals

Open access
Maloney, Stephen, Haas, Romi, Keating, Jenny L, Molloy, Elizabeth, Jolly, Brian, Sims, Jane, Morgan, Prue, Haines, Terry·2012·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The introduction of Web-based education and open universities has seen an increase in access to professional development within the health professional education marketplace. Economic efficiencies of Web-based education and traditional face-to-face educational approaches have not been compared under randomized controlled trial conditions. OBJECTIVE: To compare costs and effects of Web-based and face-to-face short courses in falls prevention education for health professionals. METHODS: We designed two short courses to improve the clinical performance of health professionals in exercise prescription for falls prevention. One was developed for delivery in face-to-face mode and the other for online learning. Data were collected on learning outcomes including participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice, and combined with costs, savings, and benefits, to enable a break-even analysis from the perspective of the provider, cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health service, and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant. RESULTS: Face-to-face and Web-based delivery modalities produced comparable outcomes for participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice. Break-even analysis identified the Web-based educational approach to be robustly superior to face-to-face education, requiring a lower number of enrollments for the program to reach its break-even point. Cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspective of the health service and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant favored face-to-face education, although the outcomes were contingent on the sensitivity analysis applied (eg, the fee structure used). CONCLUSIONS: The Web-based educational approach was clearly more efficient from the perspective of the education provider. In the presence of relatively equivocal results for comparisons from other stakeholder perspectives, it is likely that providers would prefer to deliver education via a Web-based medium. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN): 12610000135011; http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?id=335135 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/668POww4L).

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/jmir.2040

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [8]Jones D A practical unit cost approach to budgeting and accountability in colleges Levacic R, editor. Financial Management in Education 1989 Milton Keynes Open University Press
  2. [12]Rumble B Online costs: interactivity at a price Mason R, Kaye A, editors. Communication, Computers and Distance Education 1989 Oxford Pergamon Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maloney, S., Haas, R., Keating, J. L., Molloy, E., Jolly, B., Sims, J., Morgan, P., & Haines, T.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Monash Health (AU)
Corresponding author
Maloney, Stephen
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2012-04-02
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
e47
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985537345
Cited by
107
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Monash University
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
online learning, face-to-face teaching, health professions education, fall prevention, exercise prescription, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analysis, break-even point, willingness to pay, continuing professional development, stakeholder perspectives, learning outcomes
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Education, Continuing, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, 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