Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment for Pediatric Conditions: An Update of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) continues to be used for a range of diseases in children. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to update our previous systematic review (SR) initially published in 2013 by critically evaluating the evidence for or against this treatment. METHODS: Eleven databases were searched (January 2012 to November 2021). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of OMT in pediatric patients compared with any type of controls were considered. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used. In addition, the quality of the evidence was rated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: Thirteen trials met the eligibility criteria, of which four could be subjected to a meta-analysis. The findings show that, in preterm infants, OMT has little or no effect on reducing the length of hospital stay (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 0.39; very low certainty of evidence) when compared with usual care alone. Only one study (8.3%) was judged to have a low risk of bias and showed no effects of OMT on improving exclusive breastfeeding at 1 month. The methodological quality of RCTs published since 2013 has improved. However, adverse effects remain poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the primary trials of OMT has improved during recent years. However, the quality of the totality of the evidence remains low or very low. Therefore, the effectiveness of OMT for selected pediatric populations remains unproven.

Outcomes, Measurement Instruments, and Their Validity Evidence in Randomized Controlled Trials on Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality in Undergraduate Medical Education: Systematic Mapping Review.

BACKGROUND: Extended reality, which encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is increasingly used in medical education. Studies assessing the effectiveness of these new educational modalities should measure relevant outcomes using outcome measurement tools with validity evidence. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to determine the choice of outcomes, measurement instruments, and the use of measurement instruments with validity evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of VR, AR, and MR in medical student education. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mapping review. We searched 7 major bibliographic databases from January 1990 to April 2020, and 2 reviewers screened the citations and extracted data independently from the included studies. We report our findings in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 126 retrieved RCTs, 115 (91.3%) were on VR and 11 (8.7%) were on AR. No RCT on MR in medical student education was found. Of the 115 studies on VR, 64 (55.6%) were on VR simulators, 30 (26.1%) on screen-based VR, 9 (7.8%) on VR patient simulations, and 12 (10.4%) on VR serious games. Most studies reported only a single outcome and immediate postintervention assessment data. Skills outcome was the most common outcome reported in studies on VR simulators (97%), VR patient simulations (100%), and AR (73%). Knowledge was the most common outcome reported in studies on screen-based VR (80%) and VR serious games (58%). Less common outcomes included participants' attitudes, satisfaction, cognitive or mental load, learning efficacy, engagement or self-efficacy beliefs, emotional state, competency developed, and patient outcomes. At least one form of validity evidence was found in approximately half of the studies on VR simulators (55%), VR patient simulations (56%), VR serious games (58%), and AR (55%) and in a quarter of the studies on screen-based VR (27%). Most studies used assessment methods that were implemented in a nondigital format, such as paper-based written exercises or in-person assessments where examiners observed performance (72%). CONCLUSIONS: RCTs on VR and AR in medical education report a restricted range of outcomes, mostly skills and knowledge. The studies largely report immediate postintervention outcome data and use assessment methods that are in a nondigital format. Future RCTs should include a broader set of outcomes, report on the validity evidence of the measurement instruments used, and explore the use of assessments that are implemented digitally.

Digital Education for Health Professionals: An Evidence Map, Conceptual Framework, and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Health professions education has undergone major changes with the advent and adoption of digital technologies worldwide. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to map the existing evidence and identify gaps and research priorities to enable robust and relevant research in digital health professions education. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews on the digital education of practicing and student health care professionals. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Educational Research Information Center, CINAHL, and gray literature sources from January 2014 to July 2020. A total of 2 authors independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and synthesized the findings. We outlined the key characteristics of the included reviews, the quality of the evidence they synthesized, and recommendations for future research. We mapped the empirical findings and research recommendations against the newly developed conceptual framework. RESULTS: We identified 77 eligible systematic reviews. All of them included experimental studies and evaluated the effectiveness of digital education interventions in different health care disciplines or different digital education modalities. Most reviews included studies on various digital education modalities (22/77, 29%), virtual reality (19/77, 25%), and online education (10/77, 13%). Most reviews focused on health professions education in general (36/77, 47%), surgery (13/77, 17%), and nursing (11/77, 14%). The reviews mainly assessed participants' skills (51/77, 66%) and knowledge (49/77, 64%) and included data from high-income countries (53/77, 69%). Our novel conceptual framework of digital health professions education comprises 6 key domains (context, infrastructure, education, learners, research, and quality improvement) and 16 subdomains. Finally, we identified 61 unique questions for future research in these reviews; these mapped to framework domains of education (29/61, 47% recommendations), context (17/61, 28% recommendations), infrastructure (9/61, 15% recommendations), learners (3/61, 5% recommendations), and research (3/61, 5% recommendations). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a large number of research questions regarding digital education, which collectively reflect a diverse and comprehensive research agenda. Our conceptual framework will help educators and researchers plan, develop, and study digital education. More evidence from low- and middle-income countries is needed.

Digital Health Training Programs for Medical Students: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools worldwide are accelerating the introduction of digital health courses into their curricula. The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to this swift and widespread transition to digital health and education. However, the need for digital health competencies goes beyond the COVID-19 pandemic because they are becoming essential for the delivery of effective, efficient, and safe care. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to collate and analyze studies evaluating digital health education for medical students to inform the development of future courses and identify areas where curricula may need to be strengthened. METHODS: We carried out a scoping review by following the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We searched 6 major bibliographic databases and gray literature sources for articles published between January 2000 and November 2019. Two authors independently screened the retrieved citations and extracted the data from the included studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussions between the authors. The findings were analyzed using thematic analysis and presented narratively. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies focusing on different digital courses were included in this review. Most of the studies (22/34, 65%) were published between 2010 and 2019 and originated in the United States (20/34, 59%). The reported digital health courses were mostly elective (20/34, 59%), were integrated into the existing curriculum (24/34, 71%), and focused mainly on medical informatics (17/34, 50%). Most of the courses targeted medical students from the first to third year (17/34, 50%), and the duration of the courses ranged from 1 hour to 3 academic years. Most of the studies (22/34, 65%) reported the use of blended education. A few of the studies (6/34, 18%) delivered courses entirely digitally by using online modules, offline learning, massive open online courses, and virtual patient simulations. The reported courses used various assessment approaches such as paper-based assessments, in-person observations, and online assessments. Most of the studies (30/34, 88%) evaluated courses mostly by using an uncontrolled before-and-after design and generally reported improvements in students' learning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health courses reported in literature are mostly elective, focus on a single area of digital health, and lack robust evaluation. They have diverse delivery, development, and assessment approaches. There is an urgent need for high-quality studies that evaluate digital health education.

A Digitally Competent Health Workforce: Scoping Review of Educational Frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies can be key to improving health outcomes, provided health care workers are adequately trained to use these technologies. There have been efforts to identify digital competencies for different health care worker groups; however, an overview of these efforts has yet to be consolidated and analyzed. OBJECTIVE: The review aims to identify and study existing digital health competency frameworks for health care workers and provide recommendations for future digital health training initiatives and framework development. METHODS: A literature search was performed to collate digital health competency frameworks published from 2000. A total of 6 databases including gray literature sources such as OpenGrey, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Google, and websites of relevant associations were searched in November 2019. Screening and data extraction were performed in parallel by the reviewers. The included evidence is narratively described in terms of characteristics, evolution, and structural composition of frameworks. A thematic analysis was also performed to identify common themes across the included frameworks. RESULTS: In total, 30 frameworks were included in this review, a majority of which aimed at nurses, originated from high-income countries, were published since 2016, and were developed via literature reviews, followed by expert consultations. The thematic analysis uncovered 28 digital health competency domains across the included frameworks. The most prevalent domains pertained to basic information technology literacy, health information management, digital communication, ethical, legal, or regulatory requirements, and data privacy and security. The Health Information Technology Competencies framework was found to be the most comprehensive framework, as it presented 21 out of the 28 identified domains, had the highest number of competencies, and targeted a wide variety of health care workers. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health training initiatives should focus on competencies relevant to a particular health care worker group, role, level of seniority, and setting. The findings from this review can inform and guide digital health training initiatives. The most prevalent competency domains identified represent essential interprofessional competencies to be incorporated into health care workers' training. Digital health frameworks should be regularly updated with novel digital health technologies, be applicable to low- and middle-income countries, and include overlooked health care worker groups such as allied health professionals.

Conversational Agents in Health Care: Scoping Review and Conceptual Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conversational agents, also known as chatbots, are computer programs designed to simulate human text or verbal conversations. They are increasingly used in a range of fields, including health care. By enabling better accessibility, personalization, and efficiency, conversational agents have the potential to improve patient care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review the current applications, gaps, and challenges in the literature on conversational agents in health care and provide recommendations for their future research, design, and application. METHODS: We performed a scoping review. A broad literature search was performed in MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online; Ovid), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database; Ovid), PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central with the search terms "conversational agents," "conversational AI," "chatbots," and associated synonyms. We also searched the gray literature using sources such as the OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) WorldCat database and ResearchGate in April 2019. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for further articles. Screening and data extraction were performed in parallel by 2 reviewers. The included evidence was analyzed narratively by employing the principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 47 study reports (45 articles and 2 ongoing clinical trials) that matched the inclusion criteria. The identified conversational agents were largely delivered via smartphone apps (n=23) and used free text only as the main input (n=19) and output (n=30) modality. Case studies describing chatbot development (n=18) were the most prevalent, and only 11 randomized controlled trials were identified. The 3 most commonly reported conversational agent applications in the literature were treatment and monitoring, health care service support, and patient education. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on conversational agents in health care is largely descriptive and aimed at treatment and monitoring and health service support. It mostly reports on text-based, artificial intelligence-driven, and smartphone app-delivered conversational agents. There is an urgent need for a robust evaluation of diverse health care conversational agents' formats, focusing on their acceptability, safety, and effectiveness.

Correction: Offline Digital Education for Postregistration Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/12968.].

Facilitators and barriers of using digital technology for the management of diabetic foot ulcers: A qualitative systematic review.

The use of digital technology has been shown to be effective in managing chronic conditions. Telemedicine and mobile application are two common applications of digital technology in managing diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). The facilitators and barriers of using it for DFU management are yet to be explored. This is a qualitative systematic review. Five bibliography databases and grey literature sources were searched (2000-2019). Two reviewers independently screened the citations, extracted the data, assessed the quality of the included studies, and performed thematic synthesis. Three studies on patients and five studies on healthcare practitioners (HCPs) were included. Two studies focused on the use of mobile applications and six on telemedicine. In studies on patients, four analytical themes were generated: the relationships with HCPs; the attitude towards the usage of digital technology; the role of wound image taking; and impact of digital technology on DFU care, encompassing 15 facilitators (eg, enabling community support, improving wound care knowledge) and 12 barriers (eg, lack of technological savviness, difficulty reading on smartphones). Three analytical themes were generated from studies on HCPs: the impact of digital technology on HCPs; the role of digital technology in DFU care; and organisation of DFU care delivery, encompassing 17 facilitators (eg, adequate wound care training, digital technology enables holistic care) and 16 barriers (eg, lack of multidisciplinary approach in caring for DFU, lack of direct contact in care provision). Patients and HCPs reported various barriers and facilitators relating to different aspects of using digital technology in DFU management. Our findings can help inform future research as well as the adoption of digital technology in DFU management.

Use of Smartphones to Detect Diabetic Retinopathy: Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR), a common complication of diabetes mellitus, is the leading cause of impaired vision in adults worldwide. Smartphone ophthalmoscopy involves using a smartphone camera for digital retinal imaging. Utilizing smartphones to detect DR is potentially more affordable, accessible, and easier to use than conventional methods. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various smartphone ophthalmoscopy approaches for detecting DR in diabetic patients. METHODS: We performed an electronic search on the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for literature published from January 2000 to November 2018. We included studies involving diabetic patients, which compared the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone ophthalmoscopy for detecting DR to an accurate or commonly employed reference standard, such as indirect ophthalmoscopy, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and tabletop fundus photography. Two reviewers independently screened studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, with disagreements resolved via consensus. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using the random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies guidelines. RESULTS: In all, nine studies involving 1430 participants were included. Most studies were of high quality, except one study with limited applicability because of its reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting any DR was 87% (95% CI 74%-94%) and 94% (95% CI 81%-98%); mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR) was 39% (95% CI 10%-79%) and 95% (95% CI 91%-98%); moderate NPDR was 71% (95% CI 57%-81%) and 95% (95% CI 88%-98%); severe NPDR was 80% (95% CI 49%-94%) and 97% (95% CI 88%-99%); proliferative DR (PDR) was 92% (95% CI 79%-97%) and 99% (95% CI 96%-99%); diabetic macular edema was 79% (95% CI 63%-89%) and 93% (95% CI 82%-97%); and referral-warranted DR was 91% (95% CI 86%-94%) and 89% (95% CI 56%-98%). The area under SROC curve ranged from 0.879 to 0.979. The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 11.3 to 1225. CONCLUSIONS: We found heterogeneous evidence showing that smartphone ophthalmoscopy performs well in detecting DR. The diagnostic accuracy for PDR was highest. Future studies should standardize reference criteria and classification criteria and evaluate other available forms of smartphone ophthalmoscopy in primary care settings.

Digital health professions education on chronic wound management: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Continuing education is crucial for healthcare professionals to keep up with research but attending classroom lectures is a major barrier. Chronic wound management is increasingly relevant for continuous professional training. Digital education offers learning tailored to individual needs and could be an effective alternative to healthcare professionals' training. However, the effectiveness of digital education for chronic wound management training has not been explored. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of digital education in improving healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, practical skills and behaviour change on chronic wound management, and their satisfaction with the intervention. DESIGN: This systematic review follows Cochrane methodology and is one of a series of reviews on the use of digital education for health professions education. Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42018109971 DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Database. REVIEW METHODS: We included randomised control trials, cluster randomised control trials and quasi-randomised control trials comparing digital or blended education with traditional learning, no intervention or other forms of digital or blended education for pre- or post-registration healthcare professionals in chronic wound management. A narrative summary of findings is presented. RESULTS: Seven studies (1,404 participants) were included. All studies investigated interventions for nursing students or professionals working in hospitals or community settings, and all but one study focused on pressure ulcers. Five studies (935 participants) assessed post-intervention knowledge, and indicated that digital education was more effective than no intervention, while blended learning was superior to exclusive digital education. Three studies (543 participants) assessed post-intervention skills and reported mixed results. One study (140 participants) compared post-intervention behaviour change and satisfaction with blended and online digital education, and reported no difference in behaviour between the groups, and higher satisfaction with blended education. For knowledge retention up to six months, digital education was more effective than no intervention, while blended learning was superior to digital education. The risk of bias in included studies was mostly high or unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Digital education on chronic wound management appears to be less effective than blended education and more effective than no intervention in improving knowledge among nurses and nursing students. Data for other outcomes is scarce and inconclusive. Future studies should assess participants' skills, attitudes, satisfaction and behaviour change; cost-effectiveness and potential untoward effects of digital education, compare digital education to other learning modalities and include other healthcare professionals in diverse clinical settings.

Information needs and information seeking behaviour of people with dementia and their non-professional caregivers: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia often require full-time caregivers especially in the later stages of their condition. People with dementia and caregivers' access to reliable information on dementia is essential as it may have an important impact on patient care and quality of life. This study aims to provide an overview of the information needs and information seeking behaviour of people with dementia and their non-professional caregivers. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature and searched four electronic databases for eligible studies published up to August 2018. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Information needs were classified according to emerging themes in the literature, and information seeking behaviour was categorized using Wilson's model of information behaviour. RESULTS: Twenty studies with a total of 4140 participants, were included in this review. Reported information needs focused on: (i) disease; (ii) patient care provision; (iii) healthcare services; and (iv) caregiver self-care. The most commonly reported information need was on healthcare service-related information. Characteristics found to influence information needs were the severity of dementia as well as patient and caregiver status. People with dementia and non-professional caregivers mainly displayed active searching, information seeking behaviour and preferred using electronic sources to obtain health information. CONCLUSION: Current dementia information sources available in English are extensive in the information they offer, but more emphasis needs to be placed on healthcare service-related information. All studies originated from high income countries and focused on information needs of non-professional caregivers only. The only variables found to be associated to information needs were severity of dementia condition as well as patient/caregiver status. The information needs identified in this review can be used to inform development and design of future dementia resources for people with dementia and their non-professional caregivers.

Protocol for a scoping review on information needs and information-seeking behaviour of people with dementia and their non-professional caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a debilitating disease that can lead to major changes in a patient's behaviour and function. It is important to educate both patients with dementia and their non-professional caregivers about the disease. Yet, currently available sources do not seem to be effective for patients and caregivers, who report a need for more information and guidance. A systematic identification of the patients' and caregivers' needs for information and information-seeking behaviour is needed to create information resources that are relevant and beneficial to the target population. OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a scoping review aimed at gathering knowledge on the information needs and information-seeking behaviour of patients with dementia and their non-professional caregivers. Our aim was also to provide recommendations for development of future dementia information resources. METHODS: The study will commence in November 2018. Both quantitative and qualitative studies on the information needs of patients with dementia or caregivers will be examined using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping studies. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted in electronic databases and grey literature sources. We will also screen reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for additional eligible studies. Two authors will perform screening of citations for eligibility and independently extract data from the included studies in parallel. Any discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The findings will be presented through a narrative synthesis and reported in line with PreferredReporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: In this review, all included data will originate from published literature. Ethics approval is therefore not a requirement. We will present our findings at relevant conferences and will submit them for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Digital Health Professions Education in the Field of Pediatrics: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Reducing childhood morbidity and mortality is challenging, particularly in countries with a shortage of qualified health care workers. Lack of trainers makes it difficult to provide the necessary continuing education in pediatrics for postregistration health professionals. Digital education, teaching and learning by means of digital technologies, has the potential to deliver medical education to a large audience while limiting the number of trainers needed. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to evaluate whether digital education can replace traditional learning to improve postregistration health professionals' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction and foster behavior change in the field of pediatrics. METHODS: We completed a systematic review of the literature by following the Cochrane methodology. We searched 7 major electronic databases for articles published from January 1990 to August 2017. No language restrictions were applied. We independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, and pairs of authors compared information. We contacted authors of studies for additional information if necessary. All pooled analyses were based on random effects models. We included individually or cluster randomized controlled trials that compared digital education with traditional learning, no intervention, or other forms of digital education. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. RESULTS: Twenty studies (1382 participants) were included. Participants included pediatricians, physicians, nurses, and midwives. Digital education technologies were assessed including high-fidelity mannequins (6 studies), computer-based education (12 studies), mobile learning (1 study), and virtual reality (1 study). Most studies reported that digital education was either as effective as or more effective than the control intervention for outcomes including skill, knowledge, attitude, and satisfaction. High-fidelity mannequins were associated with higher postintervention skill scores compared with low-fidelity mannequins (standardized mean difference 0.62; 95% CI 0.17-1.06; moderate effect size, low-quality evidence). One study reported physician change in practicing behavior and found similar effects between offline plus online digital education and no intervention. The only study that assessed impact on patient outcome found no difference between intervention and control groups. None of the included studies reported adverse or untoward effects or economic outcomes of the digital education interventions. The risk of bias was mainly unclear or high. The quality of evidence was low due to study inconsistencies, limitations, or imprecision across the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Digital education for postregistration health professions education in pediatrics is at least as effective as traditional learning and more effective than no learning. High-fidelity mannequins were found to be more effective at improving skills than traditional learning with low-fidelity mannequins. Computer-based offline/online digital education was better than no intervention for knowledge and skill outcomes and as good as traditional face-to-face learning. This review highlights evidence gaps calling for more methodologically rigorous randomized controlled trials on the topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017057793; https://tinyurl.com/y5q9q5o6.

Health Professions Digital Education on Antibiotic Management: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate antibiotic prescription is one of the key contributors to antibiotic resistance, which is managed with a range of interventions including education. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize evidence on the effectiveness of digital education of antibiotic management compared to traditional education for improving health care professionals' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and clinical practice. METHODS: Seven electronic databases and two trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs published between January 1, 1990, and September 20, 2018. There were no language restrictions. We also searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and metaRegister of Controlled Trials to identify unpublished trials and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for study eligibility. We followed Cochrane methods to select studies, extract data, and appraise and synthesize eligible studies. We used random-effect models for the pooled analysis and assessed statistical heterogeneity by visual inspection of a forest plot and calculation of the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Six cluster RCTs and two RCTs with 655 primary care practices, 1392 primary care physicians, and 485,632 patients were included. The interventions included personal digital assistants; short text messages; online digital education including emails and websites; and online blended education, which used a combination of online digital education and traditional education materials. The control groups received traditional education. Six studies assessed postintervention change in clinical practice. The majority of the studies (4/6) reported greater reduction in antibiotic prescription or dispensing rate with digital education than with traditional education. Two studies showed significant differences in postintervention knowledge scores in favor of mobile education over traditional education (standardized mean difference=1.09, 95% CI 0.90-1.28; I2=0%; large effect size; 491 participants [2 studies]). The findings for health care professionals' attitudes and patient-related outcomes were mixed or inconclusive. Three studies found digital education to be more cost-effective than traditional education. None of the included studies reported on skills, satisfaction, or potential adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from studies deploying mobile or online modalities of digital education on antibiotic management were complementary and found to be more cost-effective than traditional education in improving clinical practice and postintervention knowledge, particularly in postregistration settings. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of other digital education modalities such as virtual reality or serious games. Future studies should also include health care professionals working in settings other than primary care and low- and middle-income countries. CLINICAL TRIAL: PROSPERO CRD42018109742; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=109742.

Effectiveness of Digital Education on Communication Skills Among Medical Students: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication skills are essential in diagnosis and treatment processes and in building the doctor-patient relationship. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in medical students for communication skills development. Broadly, we assessed whether digital education could improve the quality of future doctors' communication skills. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases and two trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs (cRCTs) published between January 1990 and September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the citations, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias. We also assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessment (GRADE). RESULTS: We included 12 studies with 2101 medical students, of which 10 were RCTs and two were cRCTs. The digital education included online modules, virtual patient simulations, and video-assisted oral feedback. The control groups included didactic lectures, oral feedback, standard curriculum, role play, and no intervention as well as less interactive forms of digital education. The overall risk of bias was high, and the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. For skills outcome, meta-analysis of three studies comparing digital education to traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills scores between the groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.19; 95% CI -0.9 to 0.52; I2=86%, N=3 studies [304 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). Similarly, a meta-analysis of four studies comparing the effectiveness of blended digital education (ie, online or offline digital education plus traditional learning) and traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills between the groups (SMD=0.15; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.56; I2=86%; N=4 studies [762 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The additional meta-analysis of four studies comparing more interactive and less interactive forms of digital education also showed little or no difference in postintervention skills scores between the two groups (SMD=0.12; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.33; I2=40%; N=4 studies [893 students]; small effect size; moderate-quality evidence). For knowledge outcome, two studies comparing the effectiveness of blended online digital education and traditional learning reported no difference in postintervention knowledge scores between the groups (SMD=0.18; 95% CI: -0.2 to 0.55; I2=61%; N=2 studies [292 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The findings on attitudes, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes were limited or mixed. None of the included studies reported adverse outcomes or economic evaluation of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence showing that digital education is as effective as traditional learning in medical students' communication skills training. Blended digital education seems to be at least as effective as and potentially more effective than traditional learning for communication skills and knowledge. We also found no difference in postintervention skills between more and less interactive forms of digital education. There is a need for further research to evaluate the effectiveness of other forms of digital education such as virtual reality, serious gaming, and mobile learning on medical students' attitude, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes as well as the adverse effects and cost-effectiveness of digital education.

Health professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review by Digital Health Education collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are an important source of information, designed to help clinicians integrate research evidence into their clinical practice. Digital education is increasingly used for clinical practice guideline dissemination and adoption. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in improving the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases from January 1990 to September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies in any language evaluating the effectiveness of digital education on clinical practice guidelines compared to other forms of education or no intervention in healthcare professionals. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence. RESULTS: Seventeen trials involving 2382 participants were included. The included studies were diverse with a largely unclear or high risk of bias. They mostly focused on physicians, evaluated computer-based interventions with limited interactivity and measured participants' knowledge and behaviour. With regard to knowledge, studies comparing the effect of digital education with no intervention showed a moderate, statistically significant difference in favour of digital education intervention (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI 0.16, 1.54; I2 = 83%, n = 3, moderate quality of evidence). Studies comparing the effect of digital education with traditional learning on knowledge showed a small, statistically non-significant difference in favour of digital education (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI - 0.12, 0.59; I2 = 34%, n = 3, moderate quality of evidence). Three studies measured participants' skills and reported mixed results. Of four studies measuring satisfaction, three studies favoured digital education over traditional learning. Of nine studies evaluating healthcare professionals' behaviour change, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education intervention to no intervention reported improvement in the intervention group. Of three studies reporting patient outcomes, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education games to non-interactive online resources reported modest improvement in the intervention group. The quality of evidence for outcomes other than knowledge was mostly judged as low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency. CONCLUSIONS: Health professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines is at least as effective as traditional learning and more effective than no intervention in terms of knowledge. Most studies report little or no difference in healthcare professionals' behaviours and patient outcomes. The only intervention shown to improve healthcare professionals' behaviour and modestly patient outcomes was email-delivered, spaced education. Future research should evaluate interactive, simulation-based and spaced forms of digital education and report on outcomes such as skills, behaviour, patient outcomes and cost.

Offline Digital Education for Postregistration Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The shortage and disproportionate distribution of health care workers worldwide is further aggravated by the inadequacy of training programs, difficulties in implementing conventional curricula, deficiencies in learning infrastructure, or a lack of essential equipment. Offline digital education has the potential to improve the quality of health professions education. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of offline digital education compared with various controls in improving learners' knowledge, skills, attitudes, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes. The secondary objectives were (1) to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions and (2) to assess adverse effects of the interventions on patients and learners. METHODS: We searched 7 electronic databases and 2 trial registries for randomized controlled trials published between January 1990 and August 2017. We used Cochrane systematic review methods. RESULTS: A total of 27 trials involving 4618 individuals were included in this systematic review. Meta-analyses found that compared with no intervention, offline digital education (CD-ROM) may increase knowledge in nurses (standardized mean difference [SMD]=1.88; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.62; participants=300; studies=3; I2=80%; low certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of 2 studies found that compared with no intervention, the effects of offline digital education (computer-assisted training [CAT]) on nurses and physical therapists' knowledge were uncertain (SMD 0.55; 95% CI -0.39 to 1.50; participants=64; I2=71%; very low certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of 2 studies found that compared with traditional learning, a PowerPoint presentation may improve the knowledge of patient care personnel and pharmacists (SMD 0.76; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.23; participants=167; I2=54%; low certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of 4 studies found that compared with traditional training, the effects of computer-assisted training on skills in community (mental health) therapists, nurses, and pharmacists were uncertain (SMD 0.45; 95% CI -0.35 to 1.25; participants=229; I2=88%; very low certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of 4 studies found that compared with traditional training, offline digital education may have little effect or no difference on satisfaction scores in nurses and mental health therapists (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.28, participants=232; I2=41%; low certainty evidence). A total of 2 studies found that offline digital education may have little or no effect on patient-centered outcomes when compared with blended learning. For skills and attitudes, the results were mixed and inconclusive. None of the studies reported adverse or unintended effects of the interventions. Only 1 study reported costs of interventions. The risk of bias was predominantly unclear and the certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of offline digital education in improving learners' knowledge and insufficient quality and quantity evidence for the other outcomes. Future high-quality studies are needed to increase generalizability and inform use of this modality of education.

Offline Digital Education for Medical Students: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools in low- and middle-income countries are facing a shortage of staff, limited infrastructure, and restricted access to fast and reliable internet. Offline digital education may be an alternative solution for these issues, allowing medical students to learn at their own time and pace, without the need for a network connection. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of offline digital education compared with traditional learning or a different form of offline digital education such as CD-ROM or PowerPoint presentations in improving knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction of medical students. The secondary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of offline digital education, changes in its accessibility or availability, and its unintended/adverse effects on students. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of the literature by following the Cochrane methodology. We searched seven major electronic databases from January 1990 to August 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster RCTs. Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS: We included 36 studies with 3325 medical students, of which 33 were RCTs and three were cluster RCTs. The interventions consisted of software programs, CD-ROMs, PowerPoint presentations, computer-based videos, and other computer-based interventions. The pooled estimate of 19 studies (1717 participants) showed no significant difference between offline digital education and traditional learning groups in terms of students' postintervention knowledge scores (standardized mean difference=0.11, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.32; small effect size; low-quality evidence). Meta-analysis of four studies found that, compared with traditional learning, offline digital education improved medical students' postintervention skills (standardized mean difference=1.05, 95% CI 0.15-1.95; large effect size; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of offline digital education on students' attitudes and satisfaction due to missing or incomplete outcome data. Only four studies estimated the costs of offline digital education, and none reported changes in accessibility or availability of such education or in the adverse effects. The risk of bias was predominantly high in more than half of the included studies. The overall quality of the evidence was low (for knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction) due to the study limitations and inconsistency across the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that offline digital education is as effective as traditional learning in terms of medical students' knowledge and may be more effective than traditional learning in terms of medical students' skills. However, there is a need to further investigate students' attitudes and satisfaction with offline digital education as well as its cost-effectiveness, changes in its accessibility or availability, and any resulting unintended/adverse effects.

Digital Education for the Management of Chronic Wounds in Health Care Professionals: Protocol for a Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Digital education is "the act of teaching and learning by means of digital technologies." Digital education comprises a wide range of interventions that can be broadly divided into offline digital education, online digital education, digital game-based learning, massive open online courses (MOOCs), psychomotor skills trainers, virtual reality environments, virtual patient simulations, and m-learning. Chronic wounds pose an immense economic and psychosocial burden to patients and the health care system, as caring for them require highly specialized personnel. Current training strategies face significant barriers, such as lack of time due to work commitments, distance from provider centers, and costs. Therefore, there is an increased need to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of digital education interventions on chronic wounds management in health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: Our main objective is to assess the effectiveness of digital education as a stand-alone approach or as part of a blended-learning approach in improving pre- and postregistration health care professionals' knowledge, attitudes, practical skills, and behavior in the management of chronic wounds, as well as their satisfaction with the intervention. Secondary objectives are to evaluate patient-related outcomes, cost-effectiveness of the interventions, and any unfavorable or undesirable outcomes that may arise. METHODS: This systematic review will follow the methodology as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. As our systematic review is one of a series of reviews on digital education for health professionals' education, we will use a previously developed search strategy. This search includes the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, the Educational Resource Information Centre (ERIC) (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO), the ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database, and trial registries. Databases will be searched for studies published from January 1990 to August 2018. Two independent reviewers will screen the library for included studies. We will describe the screening process using a flowchart as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We will extract the data using a previously developed, structured data extraction form. Included studies will be quality-assessed using the Risk of Bias tool from Cochrane. We will narratively summarize the data and, if possible, we will conduct a meta-analysis. We will use Cochrane's RevMan 5.3 software for data analysis. RESULTS: We have completed the screening of titles and abstracts for this systematic review and are currently selecting papers against our inclusion and exclusion criteria through full-text revision. We are expecting to complete our review by the end of April 2019. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will provide an in-depth analysis of digital education strategies to train health care providers in the management of chronic wounds. We consider this topic particularly relevant given the current challenges facing health care systems worldwide, including shortages of skilled personnel and a steep increase in the population of older adults as a result of a prolonged life expectancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018109971; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=109971. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12488.

Digital Education for Health Professions on Smoking Cessation Management: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking, one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease, is associated with 7 million deaths every year. This is estimated to rise to more than 8 million deaths per year by 2030, with 80% occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Digital education, teaching, and learning using digital technologies have the potential to increase educational opportunities, supplement teaching activities, and decrease distance barriers in health professions education. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education compared with various controls in improving learners' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction to deliver smoking cessation therapy. The secondary objectives were to assess patient-related outcomes, change in health professionals' practice or behavior, self-efficacy or self-rated competence of health professionals in delivering smoking cessation therapy, and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. METHODS: We searched 7 electronic databases and 2 trial registers for randomized controlled trials published between January 1990 and August 2017. We used gold standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and appraise eligible studies. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (number of participants, n=2684) were included in the review. All studies found that digital education was at least as effective as traditional or usual learning. There was some suggestion that blended education results in similar or greater improvements in knowledge (standardized mean difference, SMD=0.19, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.72), skill (SMD=0.58, 95% CI 0.08-1.08), and satisfaction (SMD=0.62, 95% CI 0.12-1.12) compared with digital education or usual learning alone. There was also some evidence for improved attitude (SMD=0.45, 95% CI 0.18-0.72) following digital education compared with usual learning. Only 1 study reported patient outcomes and the setup cost of blended education but did not compare outcomes among groups. There were insufficient data to investigate what components of the digital education interventions were associated with the greatest improvements in learning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that digital education is at least as effective as usual learning in improving health professionals' knowledge and skill for delivering smoking cessation therapy. However, limitations in the evidence base mean that these conclusions should be interpreted with some caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016046815; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=46815.