Electronic learning methods compared to traditional learning methods in anaesthesia education: a systematic review

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC Medical Education vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-11
1. Verfasser: Blackwood, Lachlan
Weitere Verfasser: Hollo, Zachary, Amaratunge, Lahiru
Veröffentlicht:
Springer Nature B.V.
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie das erste Tag hinzu!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3268438718
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 1472-6920 
024 7 |a 10.1186/s12909-025-07502-2  |2 doi 
035 |a 3268438718 
045 2 |b d20250101  |b d20251231 
084 |a 58506  |2 nlm 
100 1 |a Blackwood, Lachlan 
245 1 |a Electronic learning methods compared to traditional learning methods in anaesthesia education: a systematic review 
260 |b Springer Nature B.V.  |c 2025 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a BackgroundThe use of electronic or digital resources has been shown to be effective in improving knowledge retention and skills development through many fields of medical education. Few systematic reviews have studied the effects of electronic learning (‘e-learning’) compared to traditional learning methods in anaesthesia education. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies assessing learning outcomes from e-learning modalities compared to ‘traditional’, face-to-face or didactic teaching methods.MethodsMedical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Scopus, CENTRAL, Google Scholar) were searched for applicable studies from January 2002 to January 2023 on the 12th of February 2023. Studies comparing an ‘e-learning arm’ against a ‘traditional learning’ arm including anaesthetic doctors of any level within the study population were considered and assessed for inclusion. The systematic review tool Covidence™ was utilised to track studies for inclusion, results were synthesised be each reviewer prior to independent assessment for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool ‘RoB-2’.ResultsOur search strategy identified 1681 papers for review. Thirteen studies were deemed eligible for inclusion, assessing 572 health practitioners at varying stages of their clinical careers. Four eligible studies showed a statistically significant difference in their primary outcomes favouring e-learning, while one study found e-learning non-inferior to traditional learning. Three studies found a statistically significant change in favour of traditional learning and the remaining five studies did not find a significant difference when comparing e-learning and traditional learning. Qualitative analysis of various secondary outcomes (where applicable) found considerable variation regarding participant preference in favour of both traditional and e-learning models.ConclusionE-learning is an important adjunct to traditional learning methods and when undertaken in the appropriate clinical teaching context, outcomes from e-learning programs can outperform those from traditional learning methodologies. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the research and shows no consistent benefit to either e-learning or traditional learning. Further research is required to explore the most effective teaching contexts and the efficient implementation of different e-learning modalities in anaesthesia.RegistrationThis systematic review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (reference: CRD42023399129).(https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023399129).Twitterhttps://x.com/abcsofa. 
653 |a Medical education 
653 |a Teaching methods 
653 |a Anesthesia 
653 |a Point of care testing 
653 |a Skills 
653 |a Simulation 
653 |a Educational objectives 
653 |a Knowledge 
653 |a Obstetrics 
653 |a Cohort analysis 
653 |a Online instruction 
653 |a Didacticism 
653 |a Ultrasonic imaging 
653 |a Systematic review 
653 |a Learning 
653 |a Learning Modalities 
653 |a Computer Simulation 
653 |a Retention (Psychology) 
653 |a Physicians 
653 |a Protocol Analysis 
653 |a Control Groups 
653 |a Video Technology 
653 |a Influence of Technology 
653 |a Outcomes of Treatment 
653 |a Educational Technology 
653 |a Electronic Equipment 
653 |a Computer Mediated Communication 
653 |a Blended Learning 
653 |a Skill Development 
653 |a Search Strategies 
653 |a Randomized Controlled Trials 
653 |a Trainees 
653 |a Information Seeking 
653 |a Electronic Learning 
653 |a In Person Learning 
653 |a Outcomes of Education 
653 |a Database Management Systems 
653 |a English 
700 1 |a Hollo, Zachary 
700 1 |a Amaratunge, Lahiru 
773 0 |t BMC Medical Education  |g vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-11 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Healthcare Administration Database 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3268438718/abstract/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3268438718/fulltext/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3268438718/fulltextPDF/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch