E-learning as a complement to presential teaching of blindness prevention: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Objective: To investigate if E-learning material improves the basal student knowledge level before attending the presential class of blindness prevention (BP) and if helps to fix this information one-month RESUMOObjetivo: Avaliar se um material disponibilizado através de E-learning antes de aulas presenciais de prevenção da cegueira (PC) melhora o nível de conhecimento basal dos estudantes, e ajuda a manter esse conteúdo um mês após a aula. Métodos: Estudantes do quarto ano do curso médico foram aleatoriamente sorteados para ter aulas presenciais de PC (grupo tradicional = GT) ou ter aulas presenciais precedidas de material adicional por E-learning (grupo E-learning = GEL). Este material foi enviado por correio eletrônico uma semana antes da aula presencial. Os estudantes foram submetidos a testes de múltipla escolha com sete questões (com três alternativas cada) imediatamente antes da aula presencial, imediatamente após a aula, e um mês após a aula. Os três testes tiveram as mesmas questões: entretanto, as respostas foram distribuídas em sequências diferentes. O desfecho primário foi a nota do pré-teste. Os desfechos secundários foram as notas dos pós-teste imediato e do pós-teste tardio. Resultados: Entre os 120 alunos do quarto ano de medicina, uma amostra aleatória de 34 alunos foi selecionada para o grupo GT e 34 alunos para o grupo GEL. Os dois grupos obtiveram nota similar no pós-teste imediato (GT=6.8 e GEL=6.9; P<.754), porém diferenças estatisticamente significativas no pré-teste (GT=3.6 e GEL=4.7; P<.001), e no pós-teste tardio (GT=6.1 e GEL=6.8; P<.001). Conclusão: Os resultados do pré-teste e do pós-teste tardio sugerem que o E-learning pode ser um complemento eficiente do ensino presencial de prevenção da cegueira.

Offline eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction

“…The remaining 5 studies were conducted in low– and middle–income countries: 1 [69] in Thailand; 1 [49] in China; and 1 [51,60,65] in Brazil. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the countries in which the studies were conducted.…”

“…Most of the studies (42 out of 49; 86%) were conducted in high–income countries, and 13 of these [ 28 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 42 , 45 , 47 , 57 , 64 , 66 – 68 ] in the USA. The remaining 5 studies were conducted in low– and middle–income countries: 1 [ 69 ] in Thailand; 1 [ 49 ] in China; and 1 [ 51 , 60 , 65 ] in Brazil. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the countries in which the studies were conducted.…”

Case Study: The Role of eLearning in Midwifery Pre-Service Education in Ghana

“…Four studies (63,65,67,72) out of the 11 were excluded as they were published before 2000. Five studies (68)(69)(70)(71)73) were excluded because the study design was not a parallel or cluster RCT (e.g. a crossover design) (70).…”

“…Five studies (68)(69)(70)(71)73) were excluded because the study design was not a parallel or cluster RCT (e.g. a crossover design) (70). One study was excluded because the participants were not undergraduate students (64), and an additional study (66) was a secondary publication of another included study (17).…”

“…Two studies (67,70) were excluded because they did not include comparison groups for the eLearning intervention (e.g. two different blended teaching methods using a common eLearning intervention in exactly the same way (70). Finally, one study (66) used an eLearning intervention which was considered ineligible for the review ( i.e.…”