Cited by 691Online and Blended LearningInnovations in Medical EducationEducational Technology and E-Learning

The Effectiveness of Blended Learning in Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Liu, Qian, Peng, Weijun, Zhang, Fan, Hu, Rong, Li, Yingxue, Yan, Weirong·2016·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Blended learning, defined as the combination of traditional face-to-face learning and asynchronous or synchronous e-learning, has grown rapidly and is now widely used in education. Concerns about the effectiveness of blended learning have led to an increasing number of studies on this topic. However, there has yet to be a quantitative synthesis evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning on knowledge acquisition in health professions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of blended learning for health professional learners compared with no intervention and with nonblended learning. We also aimed to explore factors that could explain differences in learning effects across study designs, participants, country socioeconomic status, intervention durations, randomization, and quality score for each of these questions. METHODS: We conducted a search of citations in Medline, CINAHL, Science Direct, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ERIC through September 2014. Studies in any language that compared blended learning with no intervention or nonblended learning among health professional learners and assessed knowledge acquisition were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and abstracted information including characteristics of learners and intervention (study design, exercises, interactivity, peer discussion, and outcome assessment). RESULTS: We identified 56 eligible articles. Heterogeneity across studies was large (I(2) ≥93.3) in all analyses. For studies comparing knowledge gained from blended learning versus no intervention, the pooled effect size was 1.40 (95% CI 1.04-1.77; P<.001; n=20 interventions) with no significant publication bias, and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. For studies comparing blended learning with nonblended learning (pure e-learning or pure traditional face-to-face learning), the pooled effect size was 0.81 (95% CI 0.57-1.05; P<.001; n=56 interventions), and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. Although significant publication bias was found, the trim and fill method showed that the effect size changed to 0.26 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.54) after adjustment. In the subgroup analyses, pre-posttest study design, presence of exercises, and objective outcome assessment yielded larger effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Blended learning appears to have a consistent positive effect in comparison with no intervention, and to be more effective than or at least as effective as nonblended instruction for knowledge acquisition in health professions. Due to the large heterogeneity, the conclusion should be treated with caution.

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.4807

Cites

108 of 108 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?

  • Benefits of social media on e-professionalism of health care professionals, identified in this scoping review as professional networking and collaboration, have been documented in previous research for physicians, nursing, or other health care professionals.

    “The benefits of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs, identified in this scoping review as professional networking and collaboration, have been documented in previous research for physicians [121-123], nursing profession [124,125], or other HCPs [126-129].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [129]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [104]Cruickshank DR Jenkins DB Metcalf KK The act of teaching 2006 Boston McGraw-Hill
  2. [108]Manochehr NN Computers in Higher Education Economics Review 2006 2015-05-30 The influence of learning styles on learners in e-learning environments: An empirical study http://www.webcitation.org/6Yug8S5O3 6Yug8S5O3

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Q., Peng, W., Zhang, F., Hu, R., Li, Y., & Yan, W.
Affiliations
Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Yan, Weirong
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2016-01-04
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
e2
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2230405781
Cited by
691
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 7
FWCI
17.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (2007–2013, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007, 281930)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
Keywords
blended learning, health professions education, knowledge acquisition, online learning, face-to-face teaching, learning effectiveness, educational intervention design, publication bias, study quality heterogeneity, intervention duration, objective outcome assessment, peer discussion, interactivity, learner characteristics, student engagement, student satisfaction
MeSH terms
Education, Professional, Health Occupations, Humans, Education, Distance

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