Dataset Information

Prioritising topics for developing e-learning resources in healthcare curricula: A comparison between students and educators using a modified Delphi survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Engaging students in the e-learning development process enhances the effective implementation of e-learning, however, students' priority on the topics for e-learning may differ from that of the educators. This study aims to compare the differences between the students and their educators in prioritising the topics in three healthcare curricula for reusable e-learning object (RLO) development.

Method

A modified Delphi study was conducted among students and educators from University Malaya (UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Taylor's University (TU) on three undergraduate programmes. In Round 1, participants were asked to select the topics from the respective syllabi to be developed into RLOs. Priority ranking was determined by using frequencies and proportions. The first quartile of the prioritised topics was included in Round 2 survey, which the participants were asked to rate the level of priority of each topic using a 5-point Likert scale. The mean score of the topics was compared between students and educators.

Result

A total of 43 educators and 377 students participated in this study. For UM and TU Pharmacy, there was a mismatch in the prioritised topics between the students and educators. For UPM, both the educators and students have prioritised the same topics in both rounds. To harmonise the prioritisation of topics between students and educators for UM and TU Pharmacy, the topics with a higher mean score by both the students and educators were prioritised.

Conclusion

The mismatch in prioritised topics between students and educators uncovered factors that might influence the prioritisation process. This study highlighted the importance of conducting needs assessment at the beginning of eLearning resources development.

SUBMITTER: Lim HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8224897 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prioritising topics for developing e-learning resources in healthcare curricula: A comparison between students and educators using a modified Delphi survey.

Lim Hooi Min HM Ng Chirk Jenn CJ Teo Chin Hai CH Lee Ping Yein PY Kassim Puteri Shanaz Jahn PSJ Nasharuddin Nurul Amelina NA Yong Phelim Voon Chen PVC Yong Phelim Voon Chen PVC Sellappans Renukha R Yap Wei Hsum WH Lee Yew Kong YK Abu Hassan Zahiruddin Fitri ZF Krishnan Kuhan K Ghazali Sazlina Shariff SS Idris Faridah F Hassan Nurhanim N Ayub Enna E Konstantinidis Stathis S Taylor Michael M Poussa Cherry C Karlgren Klas K Stathakarou Natalia N Mordt Petter P Nilsen Arne Thomas AT Wharrad Heather H

PloS one 20210624 6

<h4>Background</h4>Engaging students in the e-learning development process enhances the effective implementation of e-learning, however, students' priority on the topics for e-learning may differ from that of the educators. This study aims to compare the differences between the students and their educators in prioritising the topics in three healthcare curricula for reusable e-learning object (RLO) development.<h4>Method</h4>A modified Delphi study was conducted among students and educators from ...[more]

PMID: 34166432

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups.Ethics and disseminationWe have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context.

Project description:Studies have shown that there is a deficiency in focused oncology teaching during medical school in Canada. This study aimed to develop oncology education goals and objectives for medical students through consensus of oncology educators from across Canada.In 2014 we created a comprehensive list of oncology education objectives using existing resources. Experts in oncology education and undergraduate medical education from all 17 Canadian medical schools were invited to participate in a 3-round modified Delphi process. In round 1, the participants scored the objectives on a 9-point Likert scale according to the degree to which they agreed an objective should be taught to medical students. Objectives with a mean score of 7.0 or greater were retained, those with a mean score of 1.0-3.9 were excluded, and those with a mean score of 4.0-6.9 were discussed at a round 2 Web meeting. In round 3, the participants voted on inclusion and exclusion of the round 2 objectives.Thirty-four (92%) of the 37 invited oncology educators, representing 14 medical schools, participated in the study. They included oncologists, family physicians, members of undergraduate medical education curriculum committees and a psychologist. Of the 214 objectives reviewed in round 1, 146 received a mean score of 7.0 or greater, and 68 were scored 4.0-6.9; no objective received a mean score below 4.0. Nine new objectives were suggested. The main themes of participants' comments were to minimize the number of objectives and to aim objectives at the knowledge level required for family physicians. In round 2, the participants were able to combine 28 of the objectives with other existing objectives. In round 3, 7 of the 49 objectives received consensus of at least 75% for inclusion. The final Canadian Oncology Goals and Objectives for Medical Students contained 10 goals and 153 objectives.Through a systematic process, we created a comprehensive, consensus-based set of oncology goals and objectives to facilitate the design of undergraduate medical education curricula and improve oncology education for medical students.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify the essential content and approaches for developing a training programme in physical activity (PA) counselling for undergraduate medical curricula. DESIGN:A three-round Delphi survey was conducted to investigate four key topics: (1) contents of PA counselling in medical education; (2) teaching and learning methods; (3) medical school collaboration and (4) educational policy implementation. Round 1 collected opinions from the participants. Round 2 focused on scoring the opinions. Round 3 summarised the expert opinions. A mean score of 4 or above identified as an important item. SETTING:All 23 medical schools in Thailand. PARTICIPANTS:Academic staff who were experts or in charge of medical schools in the fields of PA, health promotion or medical education. RESULTS:A total of 20 representatives from 18 of the 23 Thai medical schools participated in the study (for a response rate of 78.2%). The top three most important indicators of knowledge were (1) the definition and types of PA (4.75±0.55), (2) the FITT principle (frequency, intensity, time and type) (4.75±0.55) and (3) the benefits of PA (4.65±0.67). The most important component of the training involved general communication skills (4.55±0.60). An extracurricular module (4.05±0.76) was preferable to an intracurricular module (3.95±0.94). Collaborations with medical education centres and teaching hospitals (4.45±0.78) and supporting policies to increase medical students' PA (4.40±0.73) were considered to be important. CONCLUSION:Knowledge and counselling skills are important for PA counselling. Building collaborations between medical education and health institutions, as well as implementing effective educational policies, are key approaches to the integration of PA counselling into medical education. Future research should focus on investigating the effects of training in PA counselling on the learning outcomes of medical students and the clinical outcomes of patients.

Project description:ObjectivesHealthcare is a complex system, so quality improvement will commonly lead to unintended consequences which are rarely evaluated. In previous qualitative work, we proposed a framework for considering the range of these potential consequences, in terms of their desirability and the extent to which they were predictable or expected during planning. This paper elaborates on the previous findings, using consensus methods to examine what consequences should be identified, why and how to prioritise, evaluate and interpret all identified consequences, and what stakeholders should be involved throughout this process.DesignTwo-round modified Delphi consensus study.Setting and participantsBoth rounds were completed by 60 panellists from an academic, clinical or management background and experience in designing, implementing or evaluating quality improvement programmes.ResultsPanellists agreed that trade-offs (expected undesirable consequences) and unpleasant surprises (unexpected undesirable consequences) should be actively considered. Measurement of harmful consequences for patients, and those with high workload or financial impact was prioritised, and their evaluation could also involve the use of qualitative methods. Clinical teams were agreed as important to involve at all stages, from identifying potential consequences, prioritising which of those to systematically evaluate, undertaking appropriate evaluation and interpreting the findings. Patients were necessary in identifying consequences, managers in identifying and prioritising, and improvement advisors in interpreting the data.ConclusionThere was consensus that a balanced approach to considering all the consequences of improvement can be achieved by carefully considering predictable trade-offs from the outset and deliberately pausing after implementation to identify any unexpected surprises and make an informed decision as to whether quantitative or qualitative evaluation is needed and feasible. Stakeholders' roles in in the process of identifying, prioritising, evaluating and interpreting potential consequences should be explicitly addressed within planning and revisited during and after implementation.

Project description:IntroductionHealth literacy (HL) refers to individuals' abilities to process and use health information to promote health. This study aimed to develop the first HL measurement tool for the Chinese Hong Kong population.MethodsA two-phase methodology was adopted. In Phase I, evidence synthesis with a deductive method was conducted to formulate the item list from the literature. In Phase II, a modified e-Delphi survey was conducted among stakeholders (i.e., healthcare providers and healthcare consumers) to confirm the content validity of the item list. The stakeholders were invited to rate the relevance of each draft item on a 4-point scale and provide suggestions for revisions, removal or adding new items.ResultsIn Phase I, a total of 34 items covering functional, interactive and critical HL were generated. In Phase II, to obtain a balanced view from experts and laypeople, healthcare professionals (n = 12) and consumers (n = 12) were invited to participate in the Delphi panel. The response rates of the three rounds were 100%. After the third round, the consensus was reached for 31 items, and no further comments for adding or revising items were received. All items exhibited excellent content validity (item content validity index: 0.79-1.00; K*: 0.74-1.00).ConclusionsA Health Literacy Scale for Hong Kong was developed. Compared with existing HL scales, the scale fully operationalized the skills involved in functional, interactive and critical HL. The Delphi study shows evidence supporting the high content validity of all items in the scale. In future studies, these items should undergo rigorous testing to examine their psychometric properties in our target population groups. By illuminating the details in the development process, this paper provides a deeper understanding of the scale's scope and limitations for others who are interested in using this tool.Patient or public contributionPublic as healthcare consumers, in addition to healthcare providers, were involved in developing a new HL scale for this study. The input from the public contributed to examining the scale's content validity by judging whether all items reflected the skills that they need to find and use health-related information in their daily life.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough Sri Lankan medical students need to acquire specific procedural skills during their undergraduate training, agreement on what skills they should obtain is inconclusive. This study aimed to generate consensus of the expert panel on essential procedural skills and level of expertise to be attained for Sri Lankan medical students and need for developing and implementing a pre-clerkship procedural training curriculum to improve procedural expertise.MethodsA three-round online modified Delphi study was conducted between August 2022 and January 2023. The initial questionnaire was developed from existing student logbooks and published literature. Round one invited the expert panel to rate their agreement on the inclusion of essential procedures for undergraduate medical training. In Round two, the panel rated their expectation of procedural expertise for a medical graduate on the first day of internship (ie, Observer to Proficient). Round three established the consensus on the need for a pre-clerkship procedural curriculum.ResultsThe expert panel included 17 clinicians involved in undergraduate medical education and supervision of intern medical doctors. In Round 1, they rated their agreement on including teaching of 64 procedures and suggested four additional procedures. In Round 2, experts re-appraised 33 items and rated the level of procedural expertise. In Round 3, experts re-appraised the ratings of 14 essential procedures and rated the support for a pre-clerkship procedural curriculum for medical students. Consensus defined as > 75% agreement was established with 35 essential procedural skills. Most of the experts expressed the need for a pre-clerkship procedural curriculum for medical students.ConclusionsThrough three rounds of modified Delphi, the current study established 35 procedural skills essential for a Sri Lankan medical graduate. The results also support the need for developing and implementing a pre-clerkship procedural training curriculum to improve procedural expertise of graduating doctors which demonstrate the importance of aligning existing medical curricula with competency-based medical education.

Project description:In shared decision making, the exploration of preferred personal health outcomes is important. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide input for discussions between patients and healthcare professionals. The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS) PROM is a multidimensional questionnaire on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of older adults. This study investigates how the TOPICS-MDS could be used in individual healthcare conversations. We explored views of older adults regarding 1) whether the health domains they want to discuss are included in the TOPICS-MDS and 2) the comprehensibility of the TOPICS-MDS for healthcare conversations with older adults. A three-round Delphi study was conducted. A total of 57 older adults participated in the study, the mean (SD) age was 71.5 (8.5) years, and 78.9% of the participants were female. The participants were divided into four panels based on educational level and cultural background. We used online questionnaires and focus groups. Consensus was pre-defined to be the point when ≥75% of the participants agreed that a domain was important or very important (scored on a 5-point Likert scale). The inter-expert agreement was computed for Round 1 and 3 with Kendall's W. Round 2 was a focus-group. Qualitative data were analyzed by content analysis. Older adults considered 'functional limitations', 'emotional wellbeing', 'social functioning' and 'quality of life' to be important domains of the TOPICS-MDS to discuss in healthcare conversations. The participants added 'coping with stress', 'dealing with health conditions and the effects on life' as extra domains for healthcare conversations. Challenges regarding the comprehensibility of the TOPICS-MDS included difficult words and lengthy or sensitive questions. Questions that included multiple topics were difficult to understand. The TOPICS-MDS covers the domains of life that older adults value as important to discuss with healthcare professionals, and two additional domains were identified. For older adults with a low level of education or a culturally diverse background, the TOPICS-MDS needs to be adjusted for comprehensibility.

Dataset Information

Prioritising topics for developing e-learning resources in healthcare curricula: A comparison between students and educators using a modified Delphi survey.

Background

Method

Result

Conclusion

Publications

Prioritising topics for developing e-learning resources in healthcare curricula: A comparison between students and educators using a modified Delphi survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets