A systematic review of online team based learning approaches in health professional education

Le résumé fourni par la source

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to systematically review studies related to the use of online Team Based Learning (TBL) platforms with a focus on health professional education. The objectives were to identify best practices, highlight what technological platforms are effective for TBL processes and evaluate educational outcomes in terms of student experience, learning and preference. DESIGN: A systematic review of published TBL research was undertaken between August and October 2021 and supplemented in September 2022. DATA SOURCES: ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, Medline, and Cinahl databases were used. The keywords were identified from researchers' knowledge and PICO/PICo framework. REVIEW METHODS: Titles and abstracts were screened individually by two reviewers for eligibility. Data extraction was undertaken by two researchers independently and checked for consistency by discussion between the two. Articles were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Out of 656 articles 14 were involved in the final review. All others were rejected due to duplication, ineligibility, or poor quality. The studies were from a range of countries and focussed on a range of health professionals including nursing. Inconsistencies in approaches for TBL, platforms used and mixed results in terms of outcomes were noted. There was no real consensus other than that TBL was equally as effective if carried out online or face-to-face, with no clear differences to outcomes related to satisfaction in online or traditional TBL approaches. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that further research is carried out into the outcomes of TBL on learning and experiences of students in health professional courses. The development and appraisal of integrated TBL platforms should be invested in and infrastructure and resources are put in place to support this.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.