The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Offline eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Health systems worldwide are facing shortages in health professional workforce. Several studies have demonstrated the direct correlation between the availability of health workers, coverage of health services, and population health outcomes. To address this shortage, online eLearning is increasingly being adopted in health professionals' education. To inform policy-making, in online eLearning, we need to determine its effectiveness. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of online eLearning through a comprehensive search of the major databases for randomised controlled trials that compared online eLearning to traditional learning or alternative learning methods. The search period was from January 2000 to August 2013. We included articles which primarily focused on students' knowledge, skills, satisfaction and attitudes toward eLearning and cost-effectiveness and adverse effects as secondary outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. Due to significant heterogeneity among the included studies, we presented our results as a narrative synthesis. FINDINGS: Fifty-nine studies, including 6750 students enrolled in medicine, dentistry, nursing, physical therapy and pharmacy studies, met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the 50 studies testing knowledge gains found significantly higher gains in the online eLearning intervention groups compared to traditional learning, whereas 27 did not detect significant differences or found mixed results. Eleven studies did not test for differences. Six studies detected significantly higher skill gains in the online eLearning intervention groups, whilst 3 other studies testing skill gains did not detect differences between groups and 1 study showed mixed results. Twelve studies tested students' attitudes, of which 8 studies showed no differences in attitudes or preferences for online eLearning. Students' satisfaction was measured in 29 studies, 4 studies showed higher satisfaction for online eLearning and 20 studies showed no difference in satisfaction between online eLearning and traditional learning. Risk of bias was high for several of the included studies. CONCLUSION: The current evidence base suggests that online eLearning is equivalent, possibly superior to traditional learning. These findings present a potential incentive for policy makers to cautiously encourage its adoption, while respecting the heterogeneity among the studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & for the CONSORT Group* (2010) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232 · Cited by 3,824
The International Telecommunication Union
Jones, R. W. (2002) · IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium 1997. Digest · doi:10.1109/aps.1997.631791 · Cited by 1,909
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074003379 · Cited by 1,761
Internet-Based Learning in the Health Professions: A Meta-analysis
Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D. M., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.300.10.1181 · Cited by 1,498
A Guide to Authentic e-Learning
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2009) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203864265 · Cited by 595
Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual framework
Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1161 · Cited by 586
Multi‐models of quality in education
Cheong Cheng, Y., & Ming Tam, W. (1997) · Quality Assurance in Education · doi:10.1108/09684889710156558 · Cited by 585
Rodgers, M., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Roberts, H., Britten, N., & Popay, J. (2009) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389008097871 · Cited by 561
Cited by
Kyaw, B. M., Saxena, N., Posadzki, P., Vseteckova, J., Nikolaou, C. K., George, P. P., Divakar, U., Masiello, I., Kononowicz, A. A., Zary, N., et al. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12959 · Cited by 859
Self-citationAlsoufi, A., Alsuyihili, A., Msherghi, A., Elhadi, A., Atiyah, H., Ashini, A., Ashwieb, A., Ghula, M., Ben Hasan, H., Abudabuos, S., et al. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242905 · Cited by 747
E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study
Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001 · Cited by 639
Diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa: from clinical care to health policy
Atun, R., Davies, J. I., Gale, E. A. M., Bärnighausen, T., Beran, D., Kengne, A. P., Levitt, N. S., Mangugu, F. W., Nyirenda, M. J., Ogle, G. D., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(17)30181-x · Cited by 543
Self-citationKyaw, B. M., Posadzki, P., Paddock, S., Car, J., Campbell, J., & Tudor Car, L. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12967 · Cited by 257
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rasmussen, K., Belisario, J. M., Wark, P. A., Molina, J. A., Loong, S. L., Cotic, Z., Papachristou, N., Riboli–Sasco, E., Car, L. T., Musulanov, E. M., Kunz, H., Zhang, Y., George, P. P., Heng, B. H., Wheeler, E. L., Al Shorbaji, N., Svab, I., Atun, R., Majeed, A., & Car, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Global Health
- Publisher
- International Global Health Society
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 010405-010405
- ISSN
- 2047-2978 (ISSN-L)
- 2047-2986
- OpenAlex
- W2030640891
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 120
- FWCI
- 3.58
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Offline eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7189/jogh.04.010405
- The paper
- Rasmussen, K., Belisario, J. M., Wark, P. A., Molina, J. A., Loong, S. L., Cotic, Z., Papachristou, N., Riboli–Sasco, E., Car, L. T., Musulanov, E. M., Kunz, H., Zhang, Y., George, P. P., Heng, B. H., Wheeler, E. L., Al Shorbaji, N., Svab, I., Atun, R., Majeed, A., & Car, J. (2014). Offline eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. Journal of Global Health. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.04.010405
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.