A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review of: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? BEME Guide No. 52

Maudsley, Gillian; Taylor, David; Allam, Omnia; Garner, Jayne; Călinici, Tudor; Linkman, Ken

doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1508829

Cited by 35 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 76 publications

(127 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Systematic reviews in medical education require more open discussion of difficulties in synthesizing suboptimal evidence-bases and more systematic reporting of process analysis. In the example explored here, Maxwell dimensions [22,23] helped to classify and synthesize the variegated quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods evidence-base of a systematic review [17] meaningfully and moderately reliably, when only one-third of articles reported 'quantitative-only' research. The dimensions also helped to illuminate a coherent relationship with K-levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A systematic review [17]: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? Evidence from n = 45 studies [35] plus giving a deliberative framework for reviewers to share understanding in a tricky integrative synthesis and consider possible gaps.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This built beyond 'Does it work?'. When BEME review 52 [17] reported much potential for mobile devices to support health professions students on clinical placement (via their transitions, meta-learning, and care contribution, but requiring policy to address negative informal and hidden curricula), this explored beyond 'Does it work?'. Besides the usual recommendation for improved reporting of primary research, BEME review 52 recommended that 'effectiveness'reviews extend beyond a simplistic approach of just 'What works?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"study findings are systematically interpreted through a series of expert judgements to represent the meaning of the collected work. … the findings of A systematic review [17]: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? Evidence from n = 45 studies qualitative studiesand sometimes mixed-methods and quantitative researchare pooled."…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"evidence synthesis often is, and should be, an exercise in Bayesian decisionmaking, and reducing uncertainty, and not hypothesis testing" (p.5). BEME review 52 [17] investigated: 'What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements?' in an underdeveloped evidence-base.…”

Section: Building Beyond Kirkpatrick and 'What Work?' Using An Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Analysing synthesis of evidence in a systematic review in health professions education: observations on struggling beyond Kirkpatrick

Maudsley

Taylor

2020

Medical Education Online

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Systematic reviews in health professions education may well under-report struggles to synthesize disparate evidence that defies standard quantitative approaches. This paper reports further process analysis in a previously reported systematic review about mobile devices on clinical placements. Objective: For a troublesome systematic review: (1) Analyse further the distribution and reliability of classifying the evidence to Maxwell quality dimensions (beyond 'Does it work?') and their overlap with Kirkpatrick K-levels. (2) Analyse how the abstracts represented those dimensions of the evidence-base. (3) Reflect on difficulties in synthesis and merits of Maxwell dimensions. Design: Following integrative synthesis of 45 K2-K4 primary studies (by combined contentthematic analysis in the pragmatism paradigm): (1) Hierarchical cluster analysis explored overlap between Maxwell dimensions and K-levels. Independent and consensus-coding to Maxwell dimensions compared (using: percentages; kappa; McNemar hypothesis-testing) prevs post-discussion and (2) article abstract vs main body. (3) Narrative summary captured process difficulties and merits. Results: (1) The largest cluster (five-cluster dendrogram) was acceptability-accessibility-K1appropriateness-K3, with K1 and K4 widely separated. For article main bodies, independent coding agreed most for appropriateness (good; adjusted kappa = 0.78). Evidence increased significantly pre-post-discussion about acceptability (p = 0.008; 31/45→39/45), accessibility, and equity-ethics-professionalism. (2) Abstracts suggested efficiency significantly less than main bodies evidenced: 31.1% vs 44.4%, p = 0.031. 3) Challenges and merits emerged for before, during, and after the review. Conclusions: There should be more systematic reporting of process analysis about difficulties synthesizing suboptimal evidence-bases. In this example, Maxwell dimensions were a useful framework beyond K-levels for classifying and synthesizing the evidence-base.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Building Beyond Kirkpatrick and 'What Work?' Using An Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Analysing synthesis of evidence in a systematic review in health professions education: observations on struggling beyond Kirkpatrick

Maudsley

Taylor

2020

Medical Education Online

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Supporting the learning experience of health‐related profession students during clinical placements with technology: A systematic review

Jones

Wilson

McClean

et al. 2022

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High quality clinical education is a fundamental component of undergraduate health-related professions programmes. Technological interventions offer potential to support and enhance student learning experiences during clinical placements, i.e. away from the university setting. This review aims to systematically explore, evaluate and summarise the range of technological strategies within the literature regarding support of the student learning experience during clinical placements. A systematic review was conducted using defined search terms, educational and medical subject headings (MeSH). Relevant databases were searched alongside hand searching of citations and grey literature. Experimental studies with technological strategies designed to support student learning during clinical placements were included. A modified version of Kirkpatrick's levels (Barr et al., Effective interprofessional education: Assumption, argument and evidence. Blackwell, 2005) was used to evaluate strategies. Twenty-one papers met inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity existed in terms of strategies

show abstract

Digital Competence Frameworks: Their Role in Enhancing Digital Wellbeing in Nursing Curricula

Waight

Holley

2020

Humanising Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital competence, capability and/or literacy are still mostly understood and approached within higher education in terms of technical skills and knowledge. However, with media and digital technologies today are embedded in everyone's life and learning, it is now becoming clear that nurturing digital competence has become crucial for overall wellbeing of staff and students (Biggins et al. 2017). Their holistic approach to digital competence is in line with Todres et al.'s ( 2009) humanisation framework, a significant body of research suggest that digital technology plays an important role in the development of insiderness, agency, uniqueness, togetherness, sense-making, personal journey and sense of place. This chapter will combine the nursing humanisation curricula work with that of digital competence frameworks, offering a model which is of relevance to higher education practitioners concerned with the wellbeing of students and staff.

show abstract

A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review of: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? BEME Guide No. 52

Abstract: Linkman (2019) A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review of: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements?

Cited by 35 publications

References 76 publications

Analysing synthesis of evidence in a systematic review in health professions education: observations on struggling beyond Kirkpatrick

Analysing synthesis of evidence in a systematic review in health professions education: observations on struggling beyond Kirkpatrick

Supporting the learning experience of health‐related profession students during clinical placements with technology: A systematic review

Digital Competence Frameworks: Their Role in Enhancing Digital Wellbeing in Nursing Curricula

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About