Literature DB >> 30484351

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.

Gillian Maudsley1, David Taylor2,3, Omnia Allam2, Jayne Garner2, Tudor Calinici4, Ken Linkman5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ingrained assumptions about clinical placements (clerkships) for health professions students pursuing primary basic qualifications might undermine best educational use of mobile devices. QUESTION: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements?
METHODS: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) effectiveness-review of "justification" complemented by "clarification" and "description" research searched: MEDLINE, Educational Resource Information Center, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, Scopus (1988-2016). Reviewer-pairs screened titles/abstracts. One pair coded, extracted, and synthesized evidence, working within the pragmatism paradigm. SUMMARY OF
RESULTS: From screening 2279 abstracts, 49 articles met inclusion-criteria, counting four systematic reviews for context. The 45 articles of at least Kirkpatrick K2 primary research mostly contributed K3 (39/45, 86.7%), mixed methods (21/45, 46.7%), and S3-strength (just over one-half) evidence. Mobile devices particularly supported student: assessment; communication; clinical decision-making; logbook/notetaking; and accessing information (in about two-thirds). Informal and hidden curricula included: concerns about: disapproval; confidentiality and privacy; security;-distraction by social connectivity and busy clinical settings; and mixed messages about policy. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION: This idiosyncratic evidence-base of modest robustness suggested that mobile devices provide potentially powerful educational support on clinical placement, particularly with student transitions, metalearning, and care contribution. Explicit policy must tackle informal and hidden curricula though, addressing concerns about transgressions.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30484351     DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1508829

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Teach        ISSN: 0142-159X            Impact factor:   3.650


  5 in total

1.  Hurdles for adopting mobile learning devices at the outset of clinical courses.

Authors:  Daniel Folger; Jussi Merenmies; Lena Sjöberg; Eeva Pyörälä
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 2.463

2.  E-Learning during COVID-19 pandemic; Turning a crisis into opportunity: A cross-sectional study at The University of Jordan.

Authors:  Amjad Bani Hani; Yazan Hijazein; Hiba Hadadin; Alma K Jarkas; Zahraa Al-Tamimi; Marzouq Amarin; Amjad Shatarat; Mahmoud Abu Abeeleh; Raed Al-Taher
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2021-09-24

3.  Mobile app use by medical students and residents in the clinical setting: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Karine Fournier
Journal:  J Can Health Libr Assoc       Date:  2022-04-01

4.  The 'connectaholic' behind the curtain: medical student use of computer devices in the clinical setting and the influence of patients.

Authors:  Eric Clarke; Jane Burns; Catherine Bruen; Martina Crehan; Erica Smyth; Teresa Pawlikowska
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.463

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

Authors:  Gillian Maudsley; David Taylor
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2020-12
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.