Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 89-96

The online learning in medical education: A novel challenge in the era of COVID-19 pandemic


1 Department of Central Administration/President, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
2 Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
3 Second Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
4 Lebanese Food, Drug and Chemicals Administration Center, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
5 Department of Neurosurgery, Neuroscience Research Center, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lebanese University, CEO Al Zahraa Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon

Date of Submission23-Apr-2020
Date of Decision23-Apr-2020
Date of Acceptance24-Apr-2020
Date of Web Publication30-Nov-2020

Correspondence Address:
Athanasios G Papatsoris
Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, 15126, Athens
Greece
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/HUAJ.HUAJ_9_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Online learning has a well-established role in medical education, and it is well accepted by students. Electronic learning (e-learning) strategy is aimed at improving the quality of medical education by providing students with equal access to quality learning resources. The main advantages of online learning are its flexibility and the capacity for learning to be self-paced. Online learning may be particularly useful for under- and post-graduate medical education. Virtual lectures can substitute conventional lectures in medical education in multiple fields. Online learning has several barriers including lack of time and poor technical skills of their providers, inadequate infrastructure, and the absence of development strategies of the universities. The current COVID-19 pandemic may represent a real challenge to medical education. Online learning techniques can be used to complete the curricula for medical schools during this crisis. This review presents a robust evidence base for e-learning in medical education. Further, it compares online and offline learning methods in medical education.

Keywords: Classroom learning, COVID-19, electronic learning, medical education, online learning, pandemic


How to cite this article:
Ayoub F, Moussa M, Papatsoris AG, Chakra MA, Chahine NB, Fares Y. The online learning in medical education: A novel challenge in the era of COVID-19 pandemic. Hellenic Urology 2020;32:89-96

How to cite this URL:
Ayoub F, Moussa M, Papatsoris AG, Chakra MA, Chahine NB, Fares Y. The online learning in medical education: A novel challenge in the era of COVID-19 pandemic. Hellenic Urology [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 28];32:89-96. Available from: http://www.hellenicurologyjournal.com/text.asp?2020/32/2/89/301826




  Introduction Top


Community-based education of medical students has increased vastly.[1] Distance electronic learning (e-learning) refers to the use of technologies based on healthcare delivered on distance and covers areas, such as electronic health, tele-health, telematics, telemedicine, and tele-education. The traditional static concept of medical education can be changed with the help of the novel technologic revolution. Telemedicine is a term for distance medical procedure, of both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures supporting decision-making.[2] E-learning technologies offer learner control of the content and pace of the learning, allowing them to tailor their learning objectives. In diverse medical education contexts, e-learning appears to be at least as effective as traditional instructor-led methods, such as lectures at the auditorium. Students do not see e-learning as replacing traditional learning but as a complement to it.[3] Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are increasingly available in medicine. These MOOCs are offered through various scientific (commercial and noncommercial) online platforms. When offered through reputable institutions, they can provide valuable access to reliable information without constraints of time, geographical location, or level of education.[4] Computer-based teaching and learning are as effective as typical lecture-based teaching sessions for educating postgraduates.[5]

Several factors consist as barriers to online learning: administrative issues, social interaction, academic and technical skills, learner motivation, time and support for studies, and cost and access to the internet.[6] The first meta-analysis to assess the effect of internet-based instruction for healthcare professional (HCP) learners compared with noninternet interventions (offline learning) was conducted by Cook et al.[7] They concluded that the internet-based learning is associated with large positive effects compared with no intervention at all. Effects compared with noninternet instructional methods are heterogeneous and generally small, suggesting effectiveness similar to the traditional methods.[7] Richmond et al. conducted a meta-analysis and comprehensive review to compare online versus alternative methods for training licensed HCPs to deliver clinical interventions.[8] They concluded that online methods may be as effective as alternative methods for training HCPs in clinical interventions for the outcomes of knowledge and clinical behavior.[8]

Utilizing e-learning can result in greater educational opportunities for students while simultaneously enhancing faculty efficiency. However, this potential of e-learning assumes a certain level of institutional readiness in human and infrastructural resources that are not always present in low- and middle-income developing countries. Institutional adoption of e-learning ensures the alignment of new tools to the educational and economic context.[9]

The epidemic of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by a novel virus first detected in Wuhan, China. This virus was previously named as 2019-nCoV. China officially declared the epidemic as an outbreak on January 20 when obvious human-to-human transmissions were ascertained with reagent probes and primers distributed to local agencies.[10] The COVID-19 outbreak has rapidly transitioned into a worldwide pandemic. This development has had serious implications for public institutions and raises particular questions for medical schools. A substantial number of medical students are in the process of preparing for or undertaking assessments that require clinical exposure. The effect of COVID-19 on medical education could, therefore, be considerable.[11]

This current review aims to present a robust evidence base for e-learning in medical education and specifically focus on the e-learning method for medical students and postgraduate doctors. We provide a review of the aims, barriers, and solutions to online learning. In addition, we compare online and offline learning methods in medical education. Furthermore, we present a brief review of COVID-19 disease and its effect on medical education and the place of online learning in these circumstances.


  Aims of Online Learning in Medical Education Top


E-learning can be used to aid the teaching of physical skills. A video showing the technique and explaining the theory by putting it into context could prime learners before they attend the teaching session. One area that has generated interest in medical education is the “virtual patient,” who helps teaching the skills of diagnosis and management through online interaction.[12] E-learning is a viable solution for medical educators faced with many challenges, including promoting self-directed learning, providing flexible learning opportunities that would offer continuous availability for learners, and engaging learners to augment continuous professional development.[13] Students rate e-learning just as highly as other traditional methods of clinical skills teaching and acknowledge its integration in a combined approach. Developers of clinical skills curricula need to ensure that e-learning environments utilize media that encourage deeper approaches to learn.[14]

Compared to conventional learning, e-learning has the advantage that participants can choose the place and time of education themselves. Within a clinical context, the effect of internet-based continuing medical education (CME) programs is comparable to traditional approaches of CME.[15] There are three e-learning modalities that promise great potential for innovative training in the future. These modalities include simulation technology, synchronous learning delivery, and web-based or videoconferencing for standardized patient-based training.[16] There are important implications, too, for globalization in medical education and for the continuity of education from undergraduate to postgraduate and continuing education.[17]

Virtual learning environments (VLEs) can be a compelling and powerful way to support and manage contemporary medical education. A VLE purposively aligned to a course can provide a central access point and reference mechanism for all course components.[18] The provision of e-learning tools or complex-blended learning scenarios depends on an online platform where students and teachers can get access. To address this issue, different forms of learning management systems (LMSs) have been established in medical faculties worldwide. An LMS can be defined as software that automates the administration, tracks all training events, and delivers learning contents rapidly.[19]


  Barriers and Solutions of Online Learning in Medical Education Top


Many factors can influence whether or not an online learning program will succeed or fail, ranging from student-led factors to staff-led factors. Lack of skills, in particular, technical skills, was found to be one of the major barriers met by educators when engaging with the development and implementation of online learning. Medical educators are already under pressure to find sufficient time to manage teaching, research, and maintain a work–life balance. In this context, inadequate time can be a significant barrier. In many cases, the lack of infrastructure and technology can be seen as a barrier in medical education, typically in low–medium-income developing countries. The negative attitude among educators in engaging with new technologies is another barrier to the development and implementation of online learning.[20]

A two-round Delphi study, aiming to identify expectations and barriers to e-learning in primary healthcare education, has been published.[21] Results showed that there was a positive attitude to e-learning, but there was concern about the lack of orientation toward users' needs and the poor development of innovative didactical concepts. In implementing e-learning in primary care, education should be independent of financial influence from the healthcare industry to eliminate conflicts of interest.[21] According to the study, adaptation to a new learning environment is necessary for virtual learning. Many barriers were found to self-directed learning in virtual education, including cognitive barriers (information overload and lack of focus on learning), communication barriers (inadequate coping skills and inadequate writing skills), and educational environment barriers (heavy workload and role ambiguity).[22] An MOOC experience of young family doctors has been published.[23] The limitation of course completion depended on internet connectivity and high English comprehension. First, a fast and reliable internet connection with appropriate bandwidth was needed to watch the videos. Without this, the content did not load properly and affected negatively the learning process. A second limitation was that the weekly modules and videos were in only English.[23] The key challenge is systematic and pedagogical approach to e-learning in which three equally important considerations must be balanced: organization, pedagogy, and technology.[24]

There are several critical success factors for e-learning programs. These include institutional characteristics: organizational support (time allocated for training); cultural support (supportive learning environment); and information technology support (including both technical infrastructure and learner technology assistance). Instructor and learners' characteristics include motivation, positive attitudes toward e-learning, and digital literacy.[25] Students of the online learning program often provide recommendations for strategies to address these issues, such as how to communicate, facilitate teamwork, and optimize time management.[26]


  Online Learning for Medical Students and Fellows Top


Graduate students had a significantly more favorable assessment of the e-learning resources than their undergraduate colleagues. It should not be assumed that all students will choose to use an e-learning resource in the same way and instructional design should enable alternative approaches.[27] A study aiming to evaluate medical students' perception of the usefulness and effectiveness of e-learning was done.[28] Of the participants, 92% found it enjoyable and 95% found the e-learning package useful; 75% perceived it to be effective in increasing their performance; and 91% believed it increased their knowledge in consulting skills.[28]

Early reports in the literature describe using student-generated questions as a method of student learning as well as augmenting question examination banks. However, reports on the performance of student-generated versus faculty-generated questions remain limited. A study was implemented to compare the question performance of student-generated versus faculty-generated multiple-choice questions (MCQs). This study suggests that student-generated compared to faculty-generated MCQs have similar item discrimination scores but are perhaps more difficult questions.[29] There is a gap between medical faculty's positive perceptions of e-learning resources and their low use of such resources. The most frequently selected reasons for not using e-learning resources in faculty members of medical school teachers were the lack of resources relevant to lectures, lack of time to use those resources during lectures, and the unawareness of their availability for learning.[30] The Korean Consortium for E-Learning in Medical Education was formed for the collaboration in providing quality online learning resources for medical schools.[31] This e-learning strategy aimed at improving the quality of medical education at the national level by providing students with equal access to quality learning resources. The consortium also planned to share e-learning content with medical schools in other countries.[31]

Residency programs could be better resourced to integrate e-learning technologies. Asynchronous e-learning was used more than synchronous, mainly because of busy resident schedules and duty-hour restrictions. In a survey of residency program directors (RPDs), it was found that program directors' perceptions of e-learning were relatively moderate and future research should determine whether RPD reluctance to adopt e-learning was based on unawareness of the evidence, perceptions that e-learning is expensive, or judgments about value versus effectiveness.[32] Another survey was done to characterize the educational tools used by surgical residents. Respondents used online textbooks and journal articles most often to investigate timely patient care issues. In contrast, mobile platform applications and online videos/lectures were used least. Fewer than half of the respondents used simulators, limited by clinical duties, absence of feedback/supervision, and lack of working supplies. Simulators remain a required tool for laparoscopic training and incorporation of structured feedback.[33] A surgical postgraduate year (PGY)-1 “Boot Camp” as a preparatory simulation-based training was implemented at the onset of the internship. This orientation process included exposure to simulated patient care encounters and technical skills training essentials. Scientists propose the “Boot Camp” performance measures as parameters for assessment of resident training.[34]

Minimally invasive surgery is a particularly challenging competency training area, requiring significant allocation of resident and faculty time and resources. “Laparoscopy 101” is a resource for the training and assessment of competency residents in minimal invasive surgery. It consists of CD-ROM-based self-paced didactic self-instruction modules, skills laboratories, and web-based testing, evaluation, and reporting. The “Laparoscopy 101” curriculum is well accepted by trainees and yields significant improvement in PGY-2 minimally invasive surgery competencies.[35]

A study was carried out for comparative evaluation of case-based learning (CBL) aided with mobile phone “WhatsApp” and didactic lectures while teaching a topic to the 2nd-year medical students. CBL aided by “WhatsApp” helped students acquire knowledge, discuss and learn actively, score more, and retain better than the standard lecture.[36] While didactic conferences are an important component of residency training, delivering them efficiently is a challenge for many programs, especially when residents are located in different places. E-conferences (virtual conference) proved to be an effective method of delivering didactics in the residency program. Its many advantages included ease of use, cost-efficiency, and wide availability of equipment.[37] Providing effective multisite didactic teaching in residency programs remains a challenge. In Wayne State University, a synchronous two-way audio and video internet-transmitted distance learning methodology in two sites has been introduced.[38] The didactic sessions were rated highly by both groups, with no significant differences in the resident satisfaction survey. The distance learning method was received positively by learners.[38]

The Area Health Education Centers Program at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences sought to deliver high-quality presentations to family practice residents at remote locations, using a two-way interactive video.[39] Four conferences were broadcast to five remote residency programs, and two local programs received identical conferences on-site. The negative attitude shift toward interactive video may have been because it was a new experience, or the preparation of the faculty was inadequate.[39] A study has been done to evaluate the educational effectiveness of a clinically integrated e-learning course for teaching basic evidence-based medicine (EBM) among postgraduate medical trainees compared to a traditional lecture-based course of equivalent content. A clinically integrated e-learning EBM course was compared to a lecture-based course among postgraduate trainees at the foundation or internship level in seven teaching hospitals in the United Kingdom (UK).[40] An e-learning course in EBM was as effective in improving knowledge as a standard lecture-based course. The benefits of an e-learning approach need to be considered when planning EBM curricula as it allows standardization of teaching materials and is a potentially cost-effective alternative to standard lecture-based teaching.[40]


  Online Learning for Postgraduate Doctors Top


Postgraduate medical education involves the use of online learning tools. Online learning modules could have an important role in improving the clinical practice of newly qualified doctors. These modules or packages are the tools that consist of key information on a particular topic and may be broken down into several smaller modules. In a study, online learning modules were used by 86.4% of doctors who were in their 1st and 2nd years of professional work after graduating.[41] Newly qualified doctors valued e-learning as an adjunct to experiential and lecture-based teaching, and most preferred it as part of a combined learning program at work or at home.[42] A study has been done to evaluate the possibilities of internet-based radiation protection training among referring physicians.[43] From doctors answering the questionnaires, 75% found e-learning to be an easy way to study. Nineteen percent had previous experience in e-learning. Sixty-one percent found that it saved time, and 57% stated that they learned more effectively using e-learning in comparison to conventional lectures. In conclusion, doctors are very positive about internet-based learning.[43]

A weekly workload of 4.5 h may enable course participation even for busy clinicians.[44] E-learning brings with it new approaches to content development appropriate for postgraduate medical education. Emerging trends include an instructional design based on reusable learning objects and the semantic web. Those technologies will also facilitate online collaborative learning between trainees who are geographically and culturally different.[45]

The interactive potential of online CME and its flexibility in time and place offer potential improvements over traditional CME.[46] A trial was implemented to determine if internet-based CME can produce changes comparable to those produced through live interaction.[47] Physicians were randomly assigned to an internet-based CME intervention that could be completed in multiple sessions over 2 weeks, or to a single live, small-group, interactive CME workshop. Both interventions produced similar and significant immediate and 12-week knowledge gains, representing large increases in the percentage of items correct.[47]


  Online Versus Traditional Lecture-Based Learning Top


Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been implemented to compare the online learning modalities versus offline learning modalities as detailed in [Table 1] and [Table 2]. E-learning may be equivalent to traditional learning regarding knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction. An RCT concluded that evidence-based online CME could produce objectively measured changes in behavior as well as sustained gains in knowledge that were comparable or superior to those realized from effective live activities.[47]
Table 1: Clinical trials comparing online versus standard offline learning methods

Click here to view
Table 2: Clinical trials comparing online versus standard offline learning methods

Click here to view


A randomized study assessed whether web-based learning was superior to face-to-face problem-based learning (PBL) in the setting of a 6-week cardio-respiratory course.[48] While virtual collaborative learning was as effective as traditional PBL regarding the acquisition of clinical reasoning skills, it was less well accepted than traditional PBL.[48] A study comparing online versus traditional classroom-based methods for teaching scientific writing was done. It was demonstrated that online scientific writing instruction was better than standard face-to-face instruction, in terms of writing quality and student satisfaction.[49] Subramanian et al. concluded that the StepStone Interactive Medical Software (a web-based medical learning modality) modality demonstrated a significant improvement in student learning retention compared to the traditional didactic lecture format.[50] Yeung et al. failed to demonstrate a better contribution of the computer-assisted learning module to the understanding of spatial anatomic relationships of the cranial nerves in novice students.[51] In particular, no significant difference was identified between the computer-assisted module and the traditional text-/image-based learning supplements.[51]

The web-based tutorial was at least as effective as the traditional didactic lecture for teaching the knowledge and skills essential for learning ultrasound-guided vascular access. Participants expressed high satisfaction with this teaching technology.[52] Computer lectures in basic ultrasound and the extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (EFAST) versus classroom lectures were compared.[53] Computer-based lectures were not inferior to classroom lectures and may represent a worthwhile substitution in subjects without prior ultrasound training.[53] Web-based ultrasonography and the EFAST didactics are comparable to traditional classroom lectures and result in similar knowledge retention in a study of two German emergency departments.[54] When training anesthesiologists to perform lung ultrasound for the exclusion of pneumothorax, it was found that web-based training was not inferior to traditional classroom-based training.[55] A study of web-based and face-to-face approaches to the delivery of education to clinicians on the subject of exercise prescription for falls prevention produced equivalent results in all of the outcome domains.[56] An RCT was implemented to compare the effectiveness of traditional and online teaching methods for educating anesthesiology residents in the principles and practice of difficult airway management.[57] It concluded that online teaching formats may be a valid alternative for teaching residents the principles and practice of difficult airway management.[57]

In an RCT study, nurses from hospitals and primary healthcare were randomized to either e-learning or classroom teaching.[58] The learning outcome and risk of error were compared after a course in drug dose calculations with the two methods. The study showed no differences in learning outcomes or risk of error between e-learning and classroom teaching in drug dose calculations.[58] E-learning using the Computer-Enhanced Visual Learning platform significantly improved preparedness, confidence, and comfort with percutaneous closed reduction and pinning of a pediatric supracondylar humeral fracture by residents.[59]

Therefore, online methods are as effective as standard methods for training healthcare professionals in clinical interventions for the outcomes of knowledge and clinical behavior.


  Covid-19 Disease and Its Effect on Medical Education Top


The COVID-19 outbreak rapidly transitioned into a worldwide pandemic. This development has had serious implications for public institutions and raises particular questions for medical schools. The effect of COVID-19 on medical education is therefore considerable. Several teaching hospitals in the UK have reported cases of COVID-19, with some hospitals suspending medical and observer students from attending.[11] The initial reaction in many countries was for healthcare facilities to reduce or even cease many clinical services, including the closure of clinics and postponement of medical appointments and elective surgeries. As a result of the pandemic, hospital activities (e.g., research and education) and virtual e-learning platforms are increasingly being explored to eliminate physical meetings.[60] As COVID-19 is identified worldwide, governments have imposed quarantines and travel restrictions on an unprecedented scale. The COVID-19 pandemic imposes restrictions on the mobilization of medical students, with classes being canceled and the teaching hospitals operating with “on-duty” shifts only, focusing on COVID-19 cases. This pandemic represents a unique challenge to education and healthcare services.[61]

Social distancing is the most effective preventing strategy until the development of a vaccine. This precludes medical students from gathering in auditoriums or group rooms. In response to COVID-19, medical education faculty have quickly transitioned the entire preclerkship curriculum to online formats that include content in the basic sciences, health systems sciences, and behavioral sciences. Small-group formats convene online in virtual team settings. Clinical skills sessions occur online or, in some cases, may be deferred. Examinations have also transitioned completely to relevant online settings.[62]


  Conclusion Top


Online learning has the potential to make important contributions to medical education. Web-based training is an effective and efficient method for medical education. Distance online learning is expanding and replacing the traditional method. As the revolution of e-learning has begun, universities should develop e-learning materials to improve the learning experience, knowledge, and skills acquired by their students. In the era of COVID-19 crisis, it is important that the medical schools and academic centers worldwide learn from the experience and prioritize planning for virtual e-learning for medical students and residents.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Langlois JP, Thach SB. Bringing faculty development to community-based preceptors. Acad Med 2003;78:150-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Masic I. E-learning as new method of medical education. Acta Inform Med 2008;16:102-17.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med 2006;81:207-12.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Goldberg LR, Crocombe LA. Advances in medical education and practice: Role of massive open online courses. Adv Med Educ Pract 2017;8:603-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Davis J, Chryssafidou E, Zamora J, Davies D, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Computer-based teaching is as good as face to face lecture-based teaching of evidence based medicine: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 2007;7:23.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Muilenburg L, Berge Z. Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Educ. 2005;26:29-48.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: A meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300:1181-96.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Richmond H, Copsey B, Hall AM, Davies D, Lamb SE. A systematic review and meta-analysis of online versus alternative methods for training licensed health care professionals to deliver clinical interventions. BMC Med Educ 2017;17:227.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Frehywot S, Vovides Y, Talib Z, Mikhail N, Ross H, Wohltjen H, et al. E-learning in medical education in resource constrained low- and middle-income countries. Hum Resour Health 2013;11:4.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Chen X, Yu B. First two months of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic in China: Real-time surveillance and evaluation with a second derivative model. Glob Health Res Policy 2020;5:7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Ahmed H, Allaf M, Elghazaly H. COVID-19 and medical education. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:777-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Choules AP. The use of elearning in medical education: A review of the current situation. Postgrad Med J 2007;83:212-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Lewis KO, Cidon MJ, Seto TL, Chen H, Mahan JD. Leveraging e-learning in medical education. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 2014;44:150-63.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Gormley GJ, Collins K, Boohan M, Bickle IC, Stevenson M. Is there a place for e-learning in clinical skills? A survey of undergraduate medical students' experiences and attitudes. Med Teach 2009;31:e6-12.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Hugenholtz NI, de Croon EM, Smits PB, van Dijk FJ, Nieuwenhuijsen K. Effectiveness of e-learning in continuing medical education for occupational physicians. Occup Med (Lond) 2008;58:370-2.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Kim S. The future of E-learning in medical education: Current trend and future opportunity. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2006;3:3.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Harden RM. A new vision for distance learning and continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2005;25:43-51.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Ellaway R, Dewhurst D, Cumming A. Managing and supporting medical education with a virtual learning environment: The Edinburgh Electronic Medical Curriculum. Med Teach 2003;25:372-80.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Back DA, Behringer F, Haberstroh N, Ehlers JP, Sostmann K, Peters H. Learning management system and e-learning tools: An experience of medical students' usage and expectations. Int J Med Educ 2016;7:267-73.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
O'Doherty D, Dromey M, Lougheed J, Hannigan A, Last J, McGrath D. Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education-An integrative review. BMC Med Educ 2018;18:130.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Gensichen J, Vollmar HC, Sönnichsen A, Waldmann UM, Sandars J. E-learning for education in primary healthcare-Turning the hype into reality: A Delphi study. Eur J Gen Pract 2009;15:11-4.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Kohan N, Soltani Arabshahi K, Mojtahedzadeh R, Abbaszadeh A, Rakhshani T, Emami A. Self- directed learning barriers in a virtual environment: A qualitative study. J Adv Med Educ Prof 2017;5:116-23.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Hoedebecke K, Mahmoud M, Yakubu K, Kendir C, D'Addosio R, Maria B, et al. Collaborative global health E-learning: A Massive Open Online Course experience of young family doctors. J Family Med Prim Care 2018;7:884-7.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
24.
Welle-Strand A, Thune T. E-learning policies, practices and challenges in two Norwegian organizations. Eval Program Plann 2003;26:185-92.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Ruggeri K, Farrington C, Brayne C. A global model for effective use and evaluation of e-learning in health. Telemed J E Health 2013;19:312-21.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Dyrbye L, Cumyn A, Day H, Heflin M. A qualitative study of physicians' experiences with online learning in a Masters degree program: Benefits, challenges, and proposed solutions. Med Teach 2009;31:e40-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Khogali SE, Davies DA, Donnan PT, Gray A, Harden RM, McDonald J, et al. Integration of e-learning resources into a medical school curriculum. Med Teach 2011;33:311-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Warnecke E, Pearson S. Medical students' perceptions of using e-learning to enhance the acquisition of consulting skills. Australas Med J 2011;4:300-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Janzen BW, Sommerfeld C, Gooi AC. Effectiveness of e-learning in a medical school 2.0 model: Comparison of item analysis for student-generated vs. faculty-generated multiple-choice questions. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019;257:184-8.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Kim KJ, Kang Y, Kim G. The gap between medical faculty's perceptions and use of e-learning resources. Med Educ Online 2017;22:1338504.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Kim KJ, Han J, Park IeB, Kee C. Medical education in Korea: The e-learning consortium. Med Teach 2009;31:e397-401.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Wittich CM, Agrawal A, Cook DA, Halvorsen AJ, Mandrekar JN, Chaudhry S, et al. E-learning in graduate medical education: Survey of residency program directors. BMC Med Educ 2017;17:114.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Glass NE, Kulaylat AN, Zheng F, Glarner CE, Economopoulos KP, Hamed OH, et al. A national survey of educational resources utilized by the Resident and Associate Society of the American College of Surgeons membership. Am J Surg 2015;209:59-64.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Fernandez GL, Page DW, Coe NP, Lee PC, Patterson LA, Skylizard L, et al. Boot cAMP: Educational outcomes after 4 successive years of preparatory simulation-based training at onset of internship. J Surg Educ 2012;69:242-8.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Schell SR, Flynn TC. Web-based minimally invasive surgery training: Competency assessment in PGY 1-2 surgical residents. Curr Surg 2004;61:120-4.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Grover S, Garg B, Sood N. Introduction of case-based learning aided by WhatsApp messenger in pathology teaching for medical students. J Postgrad Med 2020;66:17-22.  Back to cited text no. 36
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
37.
Markova T, Roth LM. E-conferencing for delivery of residency didactics. Acad Med 2002;77:748-9.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Markova T, Roth LM, Monsur J. Synchronous distance learning as an effective and feasible method for delivering residency didactics. Fam Med 2005;37:570-5.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Lewis YL, Bredfeldt RP, Strode SW, D'Arezzo KW. Changes in residents' attitudes and achievement after distance learning via two-way interactive video. Fam Med 1998;30:497-500.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Hadley J, Kulier R, Zamora J, Coppus SF, Weinbrenner S, Meyerrose B, et al. Effectiveness of an e-learning course in evidence-based medicine for foundation (internship) training. J R Soc Med 2010;103:288-94.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Kashora FK, Charles DA. Online-learning: Exploring practices among Foundation doctors. J Adv Med Educ Prof 2019;7:14-9.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Goh J, Clapham M. Attitude to e-learning among newly qualified doctors. Clin Teach 2014;11:20-3.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Autti T, Autti H, Vehmas T, Laitalainen V, Kivisaari L. E-learning is a well-accepted tool in supplementary training among medical doctors: An experience of obligatory radiation protection training in healthcare. Acta Radiol 2007;48:508-13.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Subhi Y, Andresen K, Rolskov Bojsen S, Mørkeberg Nilsson P, Konge L. Massive open online courses are relevant for postgraduate medical training. Dan Med J 2014;61:A4923.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Harden RM. Trends and the future of postgraduate medical education. Emerg Med J 2006;23:798-802.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Zeiger RF. Toward continuous medical education. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:91-4.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Fordis M, King JE, Ballantyne CM, Jones PH, Schneider KH, Spann SJ, et al. Comparison of the instructional efficacy of internet-based CME with live interactive CME workshops: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:1043-51.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Raupach T, Muenscher C, Anders S, Steinbach R, Pukrop T, Hege I, et al. Web-based collaborative training of clinical reasoning: A randomized trial. Med Teach 2009;31:e431-7.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Phadtare A, Bahmani A, Shah A, Pietrobon R. Scientific writing: A randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction. BMC Med Educ 2009;9:27.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Subramanian A, Timberlake M, Mittakanti H, Lara M, Brandt ML. Novel educational approach for medical students: Improved retention rates using interactive medical software compared with traditional lecture-based format. J Surg Educ 2012;69:253-6.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Yeung JC, Fung K, Wilson TD. Prospective evaluation of a web-based three-dimensional cranial nerve simulation. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;41:426-36.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Chenkin J, Lee S, Huynh T, Bandiera G. Procedures can be learned on the web: A randomized study of ultrasound-guided vascular access training. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:949-54.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Platz E, Liteplo A, Hurwitz S, Hwang J. Are live instructors replaceable? Computer vs. classroom lectures for EFAST training. J Emerg Med 2011;40:534-8.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Platz E, Goldflam K, Mennicke M, Parisini E, Christ M, Hohenstein C. Comparison of web-versus classroom-based basic ultrasonographic and EFAST training in 2 European hospitals. Ann Emerg Med 2010;56:660-7.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Edrich T, Stopfkuchen-Evans M, Scheiermann P, Heim M, Chan W, Stone MB, et al. A comparison of web-based with traditional classroom-based training of lung ultrasound for the exclusion of pneumothorax. Anesth Analg 2016;123:123-8.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Maloney S, Haas R, Keating JL, Molloy E, Jolly B, Sims J, et al. Effectiveness of web-based versus face-to-face delivery of education in prescription of falls-prevention exercise to health professionals: Randomized trial. J Med Internet Res 2011;13:e116.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Bello G, Pennisi MA, Maviglia R, Maggiore SM, Bocci MG, Montini L, et al. Online vs live methods for teaching difficult airway management to anesthesiology residents. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:547-52.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Simonsen BO, Daehlin GK, Johansson I, Farup PG. Improvement of drug dose calculations by classroom teaching or e-learning: A randomised controlled trial in nurses. BMJ Open 2014;4:e006025.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Hearty T, Maizels M, Pring M, Mazur J, Liu R, Sarwark J, et al. Orthopaedic resident preparedness for closed reduction and pinning of pediatric supracondylar fractures is improved by e-learning: A multisite randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:e1261-7.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Ting DS, Carin L, Dzau V, Wong TY. Digital technology and COVID-19. Nat Med 2020;26:459-61.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Machado Júnior AJ, Pauna HF. Distance learning and telemedicine in the area of Otorhinolaryngology: Lessons in times of pandemic. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2020;86:271-2.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Rose S. Medical student education in the time of COVID-19. JAMA 2020;323:2131-2.  Back to cited text no. 62
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Aims of Online L...
Barriers and Sol...
Online Learning ...
Online Learning ...
Online Versus Tr...
Covid-19 Disease...
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed828    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded74    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]