| Literature DB >> 35202080 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: E-learning strategies were globally adopted by academies because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The characterization of students' perception of online learning is fundamental to design appropriate models for pharmacy curricula. The study aim was to carry out a systematic review about the perception of pharmacy students on the e-learning strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; e-learning; online education; opinion; perception; pharmacy students
Year: 2022 PMID: 35202080 PMCID: PMC8874398 DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy10010031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmacy (Basel) ISSN: 2226-4787
PICOS definitions.
| PICOS | Definition |
|---|---|
| Population (P) | Pharmacy students. |
| Intervention (I) | Any study that collects pharmacy students’ opinion, satisfaction, perception, or attitude on e-learning during COVID-19 pandemic. |
| Comparison (C) | Both types of study, i.e., with or without a comparison/control group were included. |
| Outcome (O) | Pharmacy students’ perceptions, satisfaction, attitude and/or opinions on e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| Study design (S) | Any study (quantitative or qualitative) involving the collection of pharmacy students’ opinion or satisfaction or perception or attitude on e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. |
Figure 1Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Flow Diagram for new systematic: pharmacy students’ perceptions on e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic [25,26].
Main findings of the 23 selected studies.
| Author, Year, Geographic Region, Database | Study Aim | Sample Size, Number of Pharmacy Students (Plus Other, If Applicable) | Methods | Findings | Discussion and Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| (Alghamdi et al., 2021) [ |
| 241 out of 312 replied | Questionnaire (response rate 77%). | Students manifested an easy access to the technology, online skills, motivation, and overall favorable acceptance for online learning and examinations. Responses: “I think I learn more in online education than in face-to-face education” (36.1 agree or strongly agree); “I prefer online education to face-to-face education” (50.3% agree or strongly agree); “I feel more comfortable participating in online course discussions than in face-to-face course discussions” (70.2% agree or strongly agree) and “Online education requires more study time than face-to-face education” (44.4% agree or strongly agree). | Students have general acceptance for online education. However, only around half of the students preferred online than face-to-face learning. |
| (Alqurshi, 2020) [ |
| 703 | Questionnaires: two Likert scales (one for students and other for teachers). | Students from half of the studied colleges (9 out of 18 colleges), in general presented a good student satisfaction, while students from six colleges ranged between satisfied and unsatisfied students, and students from three colleges included some very unsatisfied students. The most explanatory variables of students’ satisfaction were, as follows: number and type of assessments, internet connection issues, limited interactions during lectures, and difficult to concentrate during virtual classrooms. | A good student satisfaction only was achieved in half of the studied colleges. Recommendations: proactive learning strategies were purposed to overcome limitations of student–student and student–teacher interactions. A guide may help students to overcome constrains with assessments. |
| (Karattuthodi et al., 2022) [ |
| 482 | Questionnaire. | Among other things, students declared: after lockdown, if online classes are offered as an option, I will choose it (Strongly Disagree or Disagree or Slightly Disagree = 53.5%); I prefer regular classes due to the following reasons [To get more knowledge] (Slightly Agree, Agree or Strongly agree = 93.1%); I prefer regular classes due to the following | The overall attitude and acceptance from the students were not satisfactory. |
| (Mendes et al., 2021) [ |
| 401 | Questionnaire; | Students’ satisfaction with the Emergency Remote Education was on average 3.12 (scale 1 to 5): 37.9% of students (satisfied or totally satisfied, 4 or 5). Low satisfaction, regarding the quality of practical classes (3.06): 37.4% of students (satisfied or totally satisfied, 4 or 5). | The online format seems to require some improvements, especially regarding the practical classes. Slightly less than half of the pharmacy students declared being satisfied or totally satisfied, 4 or 5. |
| (Shawaqfeh et al., 2020) [ |
| 309 | Cross-sectional survey: questionnaire to evaluate students’ preparedness, attitude, and barriers (response rate of about 75%). | Average preparedness score: 32.8 ± 7.2 (Max 45). Average attitude score: 66.8 ± 16.6 (Max 105). Average barrier score: 43.6 ± 12.0 (Max 75). Students with positive attitude regarding e-learning: 49.2%. Students who have identified barriers regarding e-learning: 34%. Preparedness and attitudes scores significantly varied between different academic years ( | E-Learning was related to some issues, such as lack of preparedness, recognition of barriers regarding online learning or around half of the students manifesting poor attitudes. Finalists seem to manifest more favourable attitudes. |
| (Altwaijry et al., 2021) [ |
| Students (n = 223) and Academic Staff (n = 38) | A mixed-method approach: (1) survey to evaluate experiences of academic staff and students and (2) a focus group discussion to explore their experiences plus a five-point Likert scale. Response rate 78%. | Most students selected the option “true for me” (online education): “The amount of interactions with instructors”; “The amount of interactions with classmates”; “The distance learning process provides a personal experience that can be compared to the experience in the classroom”; ”Comfort to conduct homework’s and assignments during distance learning” and ”Comfort to study online for a longer period”. | Overall, participants showed a positive perception about online education. However, students pointed to diverse neutral domains and challenges in online learning. |
| (Liu et al., 2021) [ |
| First-, second-, third-, and fourth-year pharmacy | Collection of student written reflections, followed by codification. Five coders using NVivo 12 (March–May 2020). | Most coded challenges: ‘negative emotional response’ (frustration and anxiety were frequently reported) and ‘communication barrier during virtual learning’. The total number of references (students’ citations) for challenges were 589. Benefits (number of references = 68): Having satisfying placement Experiences; Less travel commuting; More family time; and Feeling valued and helpful during the pandemic. Most coded strategies were ‘using new technology’ and ‘time management’. | The identified challenges, benefits and strategies may help researchers and/or educators on achieving an adequate e-learning guidance. Both positive and negative experiences were identified, but the number of citations for challenges were much higher than the number of citations for benefits. |
| (Nagy et al., 2021) [ |
| 53 out of 397 pharmacy students replied | Questionnaire (response rate 13%). Open-ended questions: (1) how has the COVID-19pandemic situation affected your learning; (2) from a pharmacy and pharmacy school perspective, | Thematic analysis, with identification of two main topic: remote learning | Most students have a negative perception of online learning, with two main motives being identified (e-learning and mental health status). |
|
| |||||
| (Alavudeen et al., 2021) [ |
| Mixture | Questionnaire (April 2020 to July 2020). | Main barriers of students’ acceptance of e-learning: accessibility, inexperience, and unpreparedness. Pharmacy students (n = 125, 100%): COVID-19 affects my social and psychological wellbeing (No, 56.8%); E-learning improved the skills (No, 14.4%); E-learning has more limitations (No, 8.8%); E-learning is the future of education (No, 56%); E-learning is effective and helpful (No, 33.6%). | Overall, there was a limited student acceptance of e-learning. Pharmacy students identified both negative (e-learning have more limitations than attendance learning and will be not the future) and positive points (improvement of skills, effectiveness, and helpfulness of e-learning), with just a little more than half of students declaring no impact on social and psychological wellbeing. |
| (Almomani et al., 2021) [ |
| Mixture | Questionnaire. | Students from second to fourth years were more prepared to deal with online learning than first year students. | E-learning during the pandemic have negatively impacted students’ beliefs and thoughts. Students were unsatisfied with quality and quantity of materials, provision of online exams, and the evaluation process. |
| (Al-Neklawy et al., 2022) [ |
| Mixture | Online survey (the response rate varied between 26% and 73% per course type). | A high satisfaction with TBL was verified for all groups of students. Mean scores varied between 3.9 and 4.9 (maximum = 5) (e.g., “online TBL helped me increase my understanding of the course material” or “online TBL helped me meet the course objectives). All replies presented a statistically significant positive difference from the neutral mid-point response ( | Blackboard platform for online team-based learning sessions was a successful learning tool for all groups of students. |
| (Chandrasiri and Weerakoon, 2021) [ |
| Mixture | Online questionnaire (the response rate varied between 9.7% and 73.2% per course type). | Perception score: mean 20.4 (4.0) (SD); maximum 27; Positive > 18, Neutral = 18, Negative < 18). 59.7% agreed that online learning is more comfortable to communicate than conventional Learning. 48.3% manifested a negative perception in relation to the offer of practical and clinical subjects online. | Most students presented a global positive perception of e-learning. However, almost half of the students manifested neutral or negative perceptions on online e-learning, with a negative perception score, regarding the administration of practical and clinical issues online. |
| (Rosillo and Montes, 2021) [ |
| Mixture | Questionnaires. A dual-mode approach using HyFlex System: Students may connect in face-to-face mode, online, or a mixture of both in the Escape Room. | Communication had improved more in the seminars carried out through the “Escape Room” than in the traditional seminars: 71% students. No difficulties in using ICT, or information and communications technology: 89% students. It found to be working more with the Escape room than in the traditional way: 76% students. For both pharmacy and nursing students, the valuations were not statistically significant different between the three courses and attendance was slightly higher in the course of 2020–2021 (HyFlex System). | The classroom environment, the students’ attendance to theseminars and the motivation improved in the the HyFlex System (course 2020-2021), with similar performances to the face-to-face training (courses of 2019–2020 and 2018–2019). |
| (Simon and Susamma, 2021) [ | Mixture | Administration of a questionnaire in two phases: Phase 1—1st April 2020 (response rate 31.2%) and Phase 2—21st April 2020 (response rate 15.4%). The second phase was optimized, regarding the outputs of the Phase 1. | Mobile access over PC was preferred by students. WhatsApp was more readily accepted. Synchronous instruction engaging students were more accepted than the asynchronous ones. Overall Effectiveness of Online Teaching-Learning: phase 1 (adequate, good, and very good = 41.7%). and phase 2 (adequate, good, and very good = 71.2%). Optimizations in the second phase: (a) interactive sessions, (b) better technology, and (c) the volume of available materials for students was reduced, since students considered the online learning hard. | Students seemed to learn at a slower pace and in a different way using online options. Online learning may be optimized and adjusted to the needs of students. | |
|
| |||||
| (Reynolds et al., 2021) [ |
| 6 | An in-person course to provide in-person introductory experiential practice experiences was redesigned to be provided on-line. A 28-question survey at the end of the program. The six participants were from University of Colorado’s International-Trained PharmD students. The Mann–Whitney U test was utilized (pre- and post-course completion), which is a non-parametric test suitable for small samples. | Students agreed or strongly agreed that the overall distance course, the remote health system activities (e.g., Hospital Tour, Dispensing Operations, Practice Models), and the community activities (e.g., MyDispense tasks) valuable. MyDispense is a collaborative network of academic pharmacists who have formulated cases, content, and questions in this program. Students’ outcomes between both settings (in-person vs. online) were not statistically significant different for knowledge, skills, and abilities, but improved in online activities. | The redesigned course constitutes an alternative educational modality. However, students declared that they preferred live over online activities. |
| (Al-Alami et al., 2021) [ |
| 362 out 442 | Online-based validated questionnaire. | Around half of the students, and in some evaluated parameters slightly more, manifested positive perceptions. The less scored parameter was “the remotely-taught course contributed to a better understanding of the course content than I did before the lockdown” (40.8%). Both strengths (e.g., time flexibility) and weaknesses were identified (e.g., lack of face-to-face interaction, inadequate internet connectivity or other technical issues). | In general, pharmacy students’ perceptions regarding the effect of remote delivery of the theoretical anatomy and histology were positive, with a more restrictive output concerning the understanding of the content of the course (less than half). Some of the identified study weakness may be optimized in future training. |
| (Baumann-Birkbeck et al., 2021) [ |
| 39 (completed the post-VUMIE™ (virtual microbiology simulation) survey) | Surveys, a Likert scale (pre and post -intervention) plus collection of students’ comments. Comparison between a VUMIE and a traditional wet laboratory (lab). Response rates: around 50% at initial survey and around 25% at endpoint of survey. | The scores of the Likert scale were slightly higher for VUMIE than post-wet lab (overall, score VUMIE: mean score for the common rated items: 3.8 ± 0.78 VUMIE and 3.4 ± 0.76 wet laboratory (lab)). However, more students reported a specific preference for the wet lab rather than VUMIE, regarding the collection of students’ comments. VUMIE™ produced a slightly higher post-intervention mean scores (knowledge, skills, and confidence) when compared to the post-intervention mean scores of the wetlab. | Both activities were considered interesting and engaging. Study evidence was not sufficient to suggest a complete replacement of the traditional lab experience by VUMIE. The use of VUMIE previous to traditional wet laboratory (lab) work was suggested. |
| (Pearson et al., 2020) [ |
| 132 first-year and 120 second-year | Questionnaire. An online post lecture chemistry | 80% of second-year students and just over 50% of first-year students found the crosswords helpful and | Chemistry-themed online crossword puzzles were well-accepted by students, especially by the second-year students. Revision aids seems to be recommended in e-learning activities. |
| (Hussain et al., 2021) [ |
| 2019 (n = 25) and 2020 (n = 32) | Course 2019: face-to-face (15 lectures). Course 2020: online (16 lectures). Pre-course and post-course surveys were administered (pre survey n = 31 and post survey n = 26). | Student’s performance was not statistically significant different between both cohorts. Students’ preference for online education had grown by the end of the course, while face-to-face e-learning declined. The score for “the course should continue to be offered online and indicated that their online learning experience met their expectations for the course” was clearly favourable; M = 4.38 (agree = 4 and maximum 5 = strongly agree) (SD = 0.89). Students had previous e-learning experience. | Overall, student expectations with the online communications course seem to have been met. This study support e-learning after the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| (Elnaem et al., 2021) [ |
| 231 out of 253 replied | Questionnaire. | Satisfied with vOSCE (53.2%). 49.7% of the students preferred to not have vOSCE in the future. The virtual OSCE was less stressful as compared to the conventional OSCE (36.8% strongly agree/agree). I feel that it would be more convenient to interact face to face with the examiners rather than a video call (53.7% strongly agree/agree). | Overall, only around half of the students were satisfied with vOSCE. vOSCE administration may need to be optimized in the future. |
| (Savage et al., 2021) [ |
| 157 (156 replied the questionnaire). | Two OSCE stations were implemented: (1) conducting a medication history interview on Day 1 and (2) presenting a patient case to a pharmacist preceptor and providing medication education to a patient on Day 2. Three open-text prompts about the remote | In general, students described this experience as positive and “applicable to their future pharmacy practice”. Diverse themes arose from this experiment. For instance, Logistics (n = 65, 41.7%), Differences In-person Versus Remote (n = 59, 37.8%), and Skill Development (n = 43, 27.6%). Among others, students classified as positive to receive materials ahead of time, clear instructions, to stay at home comfortably, or staying on schedule. | Students’ perception about the online OSCE activity was positive. |
| (Sepp et al, 2021) [ |
| 2018 (fourth-yearStudents: 12 (Auditorium); 2019 (fourth-year | OSCE tests comprised diverse stations to simulate different themes (e.g., cough and sore; stuffy nose and allergy, dermatitis, etc., 3.5 min). Assessment of students at each station: establishing and | Students were satisfied with the provision of OSCE test regardless of the | The implemented zoom OSCE was feasible, effective, and students were satisfied with this practice. Overall assessment was similar between both Auditorium vs. Zoom OSCE. |
* It was not possible to conclude about the total number of participants/students.