Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

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 access
Rasmussen, Kristine, Belisario, José Marcano, Wark, Petra A, Molina, Joseph Antonio, Loong, Stewart Lee, Cotic, Ziva, Papachristou, Nikos, Riboli–Sasco, Eva, Car, Lorainne Tudor, Musulanov, Eve Marie, Kunz, Holger, Zhang, Yanfeng, George, Pradeep Paul, Heng, Bee Hoon, Wheeler, Erica Lynette, Al Shorbaji, Najeeb, Svab, Igor, Atun, Rifat, Majeed, Azeem, Car, Josip·2014·Journal of Global Health

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7189/jogh.04.010405

Cites

120 of 120 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

Show all 120 references

Cited by

See all 290

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
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.