卫生专业教育中的数字化和混合课程交付:对物理治疗博士教育项目的综合评价

IF 0.8 Q4 REHABILITATION Physical Therapy Reviews Pub Date : 2021-11-09 DOI:10.1080/10833196.2021.2000286
Megan A. Connelly Ortega, Victoria G. Marchese, Michael J. Zarro, Roy J. Film, A. Shipper, Cara E. Felter
{"title":"卫生专业教育中的数字化和混合课程交付:对物理治疗博士教育项目的综合评价","authors":"Megan A. Connelly Ortega, Victoria G. Marchese, Michael J. Zarro, Roy J. Film, A. Shipper, Cara E. Felter","doi":"10.1080/10833196.2021.2000286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Physical therapy education programs are incorporating digital delivery strategies into their curricula more than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic. The literature on digital and blended strategies within physical therapy education is limited. However, there is extensive literature across all health professions necessitating an overarching synthesis to determine best practices. Objectives In this umbrella review, we provide a critical overview of recent systematic reviews examining digital and blended curriculum delivery strategies in graduate health professions education and discuss their implementation in graduate, entry-level physical therapy education programs. Methods Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews published from January 2011-January 2020 focusing on digital or blended curriculum delivery strategies in doctoral-level health professions education programs were included. Reviews with a primary or exclusive focus on simulation, clinical education, or residency education were excluded. Results Overall, digital strategies were found to be at least as effective as traditional strategies for learner satisfaction, attitude, knowledge, and skill. The evidence supports incorporating digital strategies as an adjunct to or replacement for portions of a traditional curriculum. Considerable heterogeneity across reviews and individual studies confounded the ability to draw broad conclusions. Conclusions The evidence suggests that it is unnecessary for physical therapy education programs to abandon all of their recently implemented digital strategies once the pandemic ends. Further research is needed on programs with a substantial digital delivery component and on broader outcomes at the level of the student, the program/institution, and the greater community.","PeriodicalId":46541,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital and blended curriculum delivery in health professions education: an umbrella review with implications for Doctor of Physical Therapy education programs\",\"authors\":\"Megan A. Connelly Ortega, Victoria G. Marchese, Michael J. Zarro, Roy J. Film, A. Shipper, Cara E. Felter\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10833196.2021.2000286\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Background Physical therapy education programs are incorporating digital delivery strategies into their curricula more than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic. The literature on digital and blended strategies within physical therapy education is limited. However, there is extensive literature across all health professions necessitating an overarching synthesis to determine best practices. Objectives In this umbrella review, we provide a critical overview of recent systematic reviews examining digital and blended curriculum delivery strategies in graduate health professions education and discuss their implementation in graduate, entry-level physical therapy education programs. Methods Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews published from January 2011-January 2020 focusing on digital or blended curriculum delivery strategies in doctoral-level health professions education programs were included. Reviews with a primary or exclusive focus on simulation, clinical education, or residency education were excluded. Results Overall, digital strategies were found to be at least as effective as traditional strategies for learner satisfaction, attitude, knowledge, and skill. The evidence supports incorporating digital strategies as an adjunct to or replacement for portions of a traditional curriculum. Considerable heterogeneity across reviews and individual studies confounded the ability to draw broad conclusions. Conclusions The evidence suggests that it is unnecessary for physical therapy education programs to abandon all of their recently implemented digital strategies once the pandemic ends. Further research is needed on programs with a substantial digital delivery component and on broader outcomes at the level of the student, the program/institution, and the greater community.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical Therapy Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical Therapy Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2021.2000286\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2021.2000286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,物理治疗教育项目比以往任何时候都更多地将数字交付策略纳入其课程。关于物理治疗教育中数字化和混合策略的文献是有限的。然而,在所有卫生专业领域都有广泛的文献,需要一个总体综合来确定最佳做法。在这篇总括性的综述中,我们提供了最近对研究生健康专业教育中数字和混合课程交付策略的系统综述的关键概述,并讨论了它们在研究生入门级物理治疗教育项目中的实施。方法在PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、ERIC和Cochrane系统评价数据库中进行检索。纳入2011年1月至2020年1月发表的系统综述,重点关注博士级卫生专业教育项目的数字化或混合课程交付策略。主要或独家关注模拟、临床教育或住院医师教育的综述被排除在外。结果总体而言,数字策略在学习者满意度、态度、知识和技能方面至少与传统策略一样有效。证据支持将数字策略作为传统课程的辅助或替代部分内容。综述和个别研究之间的相当大的异质性使得出广泛结论的能力变得混乱。有证据表明,一旦疫情结束,物理治疗教育项目没有必要放弃最近实施的所有数字策略。需要进一步研究具有大量数字交付组成部分的项目,以及在学生、项目/机构和更大社区层面上取得更广泛的成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Digital and blended curriculum delivery in health professions education: an umbrella review with implications for Doctor of Physical Therapy education programs
Abstract Background Physical therapy education programs are incorporating digital delivery strategies into their curricula more than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic. The literature on digital and blended strategies within physical therapy education is limited. However, there is extensive literature across all health professions necessitating an overarching synthesis to determine best practices. Objectives In this umbrella review, we provide a critical overview of recent systematic reviews examining digital and blended curriculum delivery strategies in graduate health professions education and discuss their implementation in graduate, entry-level physical therapy education programs. Methods Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews published from January 2011-January 2020 focusing on digital or blended curriculum delivery strategies in doctoral-level health professions education programs were included. Reviews with a primary or exclusive focus on simulation, clinical education, or residency education were excluded. Results Overall, digital strategies were found to be at least as effective as traditional strategies for learner satisfaction, attitude, knowledge, and skill. The evidence supports incorporating digital strategies as an adjunct to or replacement for portions of a traditional curriculum. Considerable heterogeneity across reviews and individual studies confounded the ability to draw broad conclusions. Conclusions The evidence suggests that it is unnecessary for physical therapy education programs to abandon all of their recently implemented digital strategies once the pandemic ends. Further research is needed on programs with a substantial digital delivery component and on broader outcomes at the level of the student, the program/institution, and the greater community.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Physical Therapy Reviews
Physical Therapy Reviews REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Physical Therapy Reviews is an international journal which aims to publish contemporary reviews, discussion papers and editorials within physical therapy, and in those basic and clinical sciences which are the basis of physical therapy. The journal is aimed at all those involved in research, teaching and practice within the area of physical therapy. Reviews (both descriptive and systematic) are invited in the following areas, which reflect the breadth and diversity of practice within physical therapy: •neurological rehabilitation •movement and exercise •orthopaedics and rheumatology •manual therapy and massage •sports medicine •measurement •chest physiotherapy •electrotherapeutics •obstetrics and gynaecology •complementary therapies •professional issues •musculoskeletal rehabilitation
期刊最新文献
The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of tests used to assess the effects of power training in older adults: a systematic review Physical therapy treatment interventions and the effects thereof on clinical outcomes when addressing intra-pleural abnormalities in patients with trauma: protocol for a systematic review Motivational modulation enhances movement performance in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review What influences patient decision making after anterior cruciate ligament injury in Australia; an internet survey What is the contribution of latissimus dorsi to trunk movement and control? A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1