Digital Health and Digital Learning Experiences Across Speech-Language Pathology, Phoniatrics, and Otolaryngology: Interdisciplinary Survey Study

Abstract

Background Advances in digital health and digital learning are transforming the lives of patients, health care providers, and health professional students. In the interdisciplinary field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD), digital uptake and incorporation of digital topics and technologies into clinical training programs has lagged behind other medical fields. There is a need to understand professional and student experiences, opinions, and needs regarding digital health and learning topics so that effective strategies for implementation can be optimized. Objective This cross-sectional survey study aims to interdisciplinarily investigate professional and student knowledge, use, attitudes, and preferences toward digital health and learning in the German-speaking population. Methods An open-ended, web-based survey was developed and conducted with professionals and students in CSD including phoniatricians and otolaryngologists, speech-language pathologists (German: Logopäd*innen), medical students, and speech-language pathology students. Differences in knowledge, use, attitudes, and preferences across profession, generation, and years of experience were analyzed. Results A total of 170 participants completed the survey. Respondents demonstrated greater familiarity with digital learning as opposed to eHealth concepts. Significant differences were noted across profession (P<.001), generation (P=.001), and years of experience (P<.001), which demonstrated that students and younger participants were less familiar with digital health terminology. Professional (P<.001) and generational differences were also found (P=.04) in knowledge of digital therapy tools, though no significant differences were found for digital learning tools. Participants primarily used computers, tablets, and mobile phones; non–eHealth-specific tools (eg, word processing and videoconferencing applications); and digital formats such as videos, web courses, and apps. Many indicated a desire for more interactive platforms, such as virtual reality. Significant differences were found across generations for positive views toward digitalization (P<.001) and across profession for feelings of preparedness (P=.04). Interestingly, across profession (P=.03), generation (P=.006), and years of experience (P=.01), students and younger participants demonstrated greater support for medical certification. Commonly reported areas of concern included technical difficulties, quality and validity of digital materials, data privacy, and social presence. Respondents tended to prefer blended learning, a limited to moderate level of interactivity, and time and space–flexible learning environments (63/170, 37.1%), with a notable proportion still preferring traditional time and space–dependent learning (49/170, 28.8%). Conclusions This comprehensive investigation into the current state of CSD student and professional opinions and experiences has shown that incorporation of digital topics and skills into academic and professional development curricula will be crucial for ensuring that the field is prepared for the ever-digitalizing health care environment. Deeper empirical investigation into efficacy and acceptance of digital learning and practice strategies and systematic training and practical organizational supports must be planned to ensure adaptive education and practice.

Artificial intelligence education for radiographers, an evaluation of a UK postgraduate educational intervention using participatory action research: a pilot study

“…Student participants problematised learning and teaching in the online space. This sentiment is echoed in the existing body of evidence [ 54 , 55 ] and it has been a prominent point of discussion about online teaching challenges in forming strong bonds, while trying to adhere to coronavirus pandemic related restrictions [ 57 , 58 ]. Isolation due to online learning was perceived as a hindrance to student participants’ learning and this is a known factor of attrition, indicated in the literature.…”

Digital Health and Learning in Speech-Language Pathology, Phoniatrics, and Otolaryngology: Survey Study for Designing a Digital Learning Toolbox App

“…In the first part, knowledge, use, attitudes, and preferences toward digital health and learning of current students and professionals across the interdisciplinary fields of speech-language pathology, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology in the German-speaking countries were investigated. The results of the first section have already been published in a separate article to maximize the depth of analysis [ 43 ]. This study focuses separately on professional and student attitudes and preferences regarding a proposed DLT app.…”

What works, how and in which contexts when supporting parents to implement intensive speech and language therapy at home for children with speech sound disorder? A protocol for a realist review

“…34 It is often used interchangeably with other terms including mobile health (m-health), telehealth, connected health, ehealth, health information Open access technology and wearable devices. [35][36][37] Generally, these 'digital tools' aim to use technology, comprising hardware and/or software to support diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, self-care as well as new ways to train clinicians or support clinical decision-making. 36 Applications range from low-cost solutions using everyday technologies, such as smart phones, to high-cost specialist solutions such as sensorised environments.…”

“…Digital health is a broad term referring to the use of information and communication technology within a healthcare context 34. It is often used interchangeably with other terms including mobile health (m-health), telehealth, connected health, ehealth, health information technology and wearable devices 35–37. Generally, these ‘digital tools’ aim to use technology, comprising hardware and/or software to support diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, self-care as well as new ways to train clinicians or support clinical decision-making 36.…”