A rapid review of the effectiveness of alternative education delivery strategies in medical, dental, nursing and pharmacy education during the COVID-19 pandemic

  1. Judith Carrier
  2. Deborah Edwards
  3. Michal Tombs
  4. Steve Riley
  5. Ruth Lewis
  6. Elizabeth Gillen
  7. Alison Cooper
  8. Adrian Edwards

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Education delivery in higher education institutions was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with emergency remote teaching developed and adapted promptly for the circumstances. This rapid review investigated the effectiveness of alternative education delivery strategies during the pandemic for medical, dental, nursing and pharmacy students, to help plan and adapt further education provision.

Methods

We included 23 primary studies in undergraduate education, all published in 2020-2021, no relevant UK-based or postgraduate studies were found. Included studies comprised 10 single cohort descriptive; 11 comparative descriptive; and two RCTs. There was considerable variability in terms of students, type of distance learning, platforms used and outcome measures.

Results

In medicine (n=14), self-reported competency and confidence, and demonstrable suturing skills were achieved through participating in remote learning. However, lower levels of knowledge were obtained by students who received virtual or blended learning compared to in-person teaching (low-very low confidence). Using bespoke interactive platforms in undergraduate medical training was superior to standard video (low confidence) or ‘textbook’ presentations (very low confidence).

In dentistry (n=2), remote learning led to knowledge gained (low confidence), but self-reported practical and interpersonal skills were lower with remote rather than in-person learning (very low confidence).

In nursing (n=3), remote learning, when compared to in-person, resulted in similar knowledge and self-reported competency levels (very low confidence) pre-COVID, but confidence was higher when learning or assessment was conducted virtually (low confidence).

In pharmacy (n=4), virtual learning was associated with higher skills, but lower knowledge compared to in-person, pre-COVID; self-reported competency and confidence scores were similar between the two groups (very low confidence).

Conclusions

Remote teaching was valued, and learning was achieved, but the comparative effectiveness of virtual versus in-person teaching is less clear. Supplementary alternative or in-person practical sessions may be required post-emergency to address learning needs for some disadvantaged student groups.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.04.22271892: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search strategy: Searches were conducted across four databases: On the OVID platform: MEDLINE and Embase, on the EBSCO platform: CINAHL and ERIC, from December 2019 to 8th June 2021 for English language citations.
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    An initial search of MEDLINE was undertaken (medicine or medical or nurs* or dental or dentistry or pharmacy or pharmacist) AND education* or train* or teach* or student* or undergraduate* or postgraduate* AND COVID* or coronavirus) followed by analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe the article.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Two reviewers dual screened at least 20% of citations using the information provided in the title and abstract using the software package Covidence™, resolving all conflicts.
    Covidence™
    suggested: (Covidence, RRID:SCR_016484)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.04.22271892v1 on medRxiv