| Literature DB >> 35732562 |
Olanrewaju Lawal1, David Omiyi2, Helen York3, Theophilus N Akudjedu4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The sudden onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant and rapid changes to the traditional ways of providing radiography education, including adaptations to teaching and learning styles as well as disruptions to students' clinical placement. This review explored the impact of the pandemic on clinical radiography education globally.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Medical imaging; Radiography education
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35732562 PMCID: PMC9149048 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2022.05.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Sci ISSN: 1876-7982
Descriptive characteristics of relevant research studies.
| No. | Authors & year | Methods | Study Aim (s) | Key findings | Quality | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country & Continent of study | Sample Characteristics | Data collection approach | Study period & Duration | |||||
| 1. | Abuzaid, Elshami & Noorajan (2021) | United Arab Emirates, Asia | 59 diagnostic radiography students | 1. Online survey 2. Focus groups | March to June 2020 | To assess the students' experiences and challenges of using the clinical practice e-portfolio during the COVID-19 outbreak. | a. The e-portfolio helped the students to develop skills to evaluate their commitment to learning and education. b. The students reported technical issues that can be resolved by training and technical support, and self-troubleshooting skills. | Moderate |
| 2. | Cushen-Brewster et al. (2021) | United Kingdom, Europe | 17 participants comprised 9 diagnostic and therapeutic radiography students, 6 practice educators, and 2 academics. | Semi-structured interviews and focus groups | September to October 2020 | To explore the experiences of students who were in the temporary register. | a. Working during the pandemic had some emotional impact on them, but they felt colleagues and managers supported them effectively, and it enabled them to recover. They felt appreciated and part of the team. b. They are more aware of their competence, which has helped improve their confidence as professionals. c. The constant use of PPE has been uncomfortable. | Moderate |
| 3. | Higgins, Murphy & Hogg (2020) | United Kingdom, Europe | 32 diagnostic radiography students | Online survey | 7-week period | To examine second-year students' cohort task value and self-efficacy of an online teaching experience. | a. The online approach effectively scaffolds student learning and the development of research skills and applicability. b. It facilitates student-student and student-instructor interaction | High |
| 4. | Ogolodom et al. (2021) | Nigeria, Africa | 119 postgraduate diagnostic radiography students | Survey | Not stated | To assess the impact of COVID 19 on students' academic progress | a. The workload at their hospital has not affected their availability to engage in postgraduate studies. A delay in completing the programmes increases their expenses and loss of job opportunities. b. Recommended the use of online courses and clinical demonstrations to support future students. | High |
| 5. | Rainford et al. 2020 | Multinational* | 1277 diagnostic radiography students | Online survey | January to June 2020 | To examine students' clinical placement views during the initial COVID-19 pandemic outbreak | a. Student challenges were accommodation and travel concerns, personal health, family health, childcare and financial worries. b. Recommendation– the need for flexibility to support students. c. Effective communication with students about clinical placements and their assessments. | High |
| 6. | Courtier et al. (2021) | United Kingdom, Europe | 11 therapeutic radiography students | Focus group discussions | May 2020 | To explore the experience of students transitioning to practitioners during the pandemic | a. Covid-19 was an additional issue to worry about aside from the anxiety of transitioning to a professional. b. Few of the students would have preferred a short break before starting the role. c. Felt valued as a health professional because of their contributions. d. Mixed identity- practitioner and student | High |
| 7. | Strudwick et al. (2021). | United Kingdom, Europe | 6 practice educators, and 2 academics (An equal proportion of diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers) | Focus groups and interviews | October to November 2020 | To explore the experience of academics and practice educators supporting students that are transitioning to practitioners during the pandemic | a. Competence and the transition to registration- students were motivated to help during the pandemic. b. Support was provided by the academics (virtual learning platform), practice educators and other radiographers to ensure the students were comfortable with what they were doing in practice. c. Cross organisational communication and the importance of communication in supporting mental wellbeing. | Moderate |
| 8. | Boabeng, Rockson & Badger (2021) | Ghana, Africa | 476 diagnostic radiography students | Online survey | May to July 2020 | To assess students' knowledge of COVID-19 and its effects. | a. The majority of the participants 335 (74.6%), followed the relevant guidance for COVID-19. b. Most of the participants ( | Moderate |
| 9. | Lawson-Jones et al. (2021) | United Kingdom, Europe | 201 diagnostic radiography students | Open-ended questionnaires | May to June 2020 | To explore students' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic | a. Many of the participants expressed anxiety and fear. They also showed positive emotions as they were happy with their choice of career. b. The participants reported concern about the use of technology and coping with online learning. c. The participants stated that support from institutions, friends, and family helped alleviate their anxiety. | High |
| 10. | Alhasan & Al-Horani (2021) | United Arab Emirates, Asia | 212 diagnostic radiography students | Online survey | Not stated | To assess students' perspectives on the online delivery of lectures during the COVID-19 pandemic | a.The majority of the participants were aware of COVID-19. The knowledge increases with the increasing year of study and clinical experience. b. Some of the participants (52%) were satisfied with the online delivery method. They believe this approach is stressful and requires more self-study. c. The students reported that improved communication infrastructures, staff and student training on how to use the online platforms, and availability of online facilities might enhance their learning experience. | Moderate |
| 11. | Blackburn et al. (2021) | United Kingdom, Europe | 5 newly qualified diagnostic radiographers | Interviews | June to July 2020 | To explore the experience of student radiographers' transitioning into qualified radiographers during the COVID-19 pandemic. | a. Staffing issues and increasing patient numbers were perceived to have resulted in a lack of formal training. However, increased responsibility quickly helped improve their confidence level. b. The use of PPE was uncomfortable and hindered communication with patients. c. Social and professional support eased their transition. | Moderate |
| 12. | Gumede & Badriparsad (2021) | South Africa, Africa | 14 diagnostic radiography students | Interviews | June to July 2020 | To explore the experience of students of the online learning during COVID-19 | a. The students expressed anxiety as a result of the change to the online delivery method. They found the approach challenging as they were not able to interact effectively with their tutors. b. The shortage of resources with a lack of computer skills affects students' motivation toward online learning. They believe that the support provided by their lecturers in this period helped them with the transition to online delivery methods. | High |
| 13. | Ofori-Manteaw, Dzidzornu & Akudjedu (2021) | Ghana, Africa | 277 diagnostic, therapeutic radiography students and 14 educators | Survey | December 2020 to March 2021 | To assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical radiography education | a. Poor internet connectivity b. Insufficient time for academic discussion c. The clinical departments were reluctant to accept students. d. The majority of the educators reported that the pandemic had affected their research output. | Moderate |
| 14. | Palmaria & Osmar (2021) | Canada, North America | 8 radiotherapy students | Questionnaire | May to July 2021 | To assess the impact of COVID-19 on the students' confidence and preparedness to attend clinical placement | a. The use of workshops to introduce the clinical environment to students is useful in improving their experience. b. The use of masks made communication difficult. | Moderate |
| 15. | Webster & Clark (2020) | United States of America, North America | 274 diagnostic and therapeutic radiography educators | Mixed method survey | May 2020 | To explore Educators' experience regarding COVID-19 response | a. A majority of the participants were comfortable with chang their lecture delivery format. b. Some clinical sites were unable to allow students to complete their rotations. The participants had issues modifying their students' clinical placement experience. c. There were issues reported regarding PPE procurement. | High |
| 16. | Tay et al. (2020) | Singapore, Asia | 45 diagnostic radiography students | Survey | March 2020 | To explore students' concerns regarding resuming clinical placement | a. The students were concerned about resuming clinical placement. b. Video conferencing platforms were used to check on students' progress and provide pastoral support. c. Simulation skill-based laboratory sessions were used to make up for the limited clinical experience. | Moderate |
| 17. | Ng (2020) | Australia, Oceania | 48 diagnostic radiography students | Retrospective study | August 2020 | To evaluate the academic integrity of the online open-book assessment. | a. There was no academic integrity issue with the online open-book assessments. | High |
Legend: * = Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States of America. The QATSDD assessment tool was employed for quality assessment to reduce the risk of bias. This tool comprised 16 quality criteria, with 14 apply to qualitative studies, 14 to quantitative studies and all 16 to mixed methods papers. Each criterion scores from 0 to 3. Using the descriptions for each score, each included article is scored from 0 to 3 on each item within a scoring grid. In order to compare the quality of the included articles, an average of the quality score is calculated and converted into percentage quality scores for all studies of the same designs as a group. The studies were categorised as high quality if an aggregate score is above 70% is achieved, moderate quality for those scored between 50 and 70%, and low quality for those scored less than 50%, as done previously in Akudjedu et al.17. These aggregate quality scores were not a part of the article exclusion criteria. The omission of studies with low aggregate scores could limit the review's global essence, since some findings relate specifically to certain geographical regions.
Fig. 1PRISMA Flow diagram- search strategy.