Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun 4;21(6):e13574.
doi: 10.2196/13574.

Examining Cost Measurements in Production and Delivery of Three Case Studies Using E-Learning for Applied Health Sciences: Cross-Case Synthesis

Edward Meinert  1   2 , Abrar Alturkistani  1 , Kimberley A Foley  1 , David Brindley  2 , Josip Car  1
Affiliations

Examining Cost Measurements in Production and Delivery of Three Case Studies Using E-Learning for Applied Health Sciences: Cross-Case Synthesis

Edward Meinert et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: The World Health Report (2006) by the World Health Organization conveys that a significant increase is needed in global health care resourcing to meet the current and future demand for health professionals. Electronic learning (e-Learning) presents a possible opportunity to change and optimize training by providing a scalable means for instruction, thus reducing the costs for training health professionals and providing patient education. Research literature often suggests that a benefit of e-Learning is its cost-effectiveness compared with face-to-face instruction, yet there is limited evidence with respect to the comparison of design and production costs with other forms of instruction or the establishment of standards pertaining to budgeting for these costs.

Objective: To determine the potential cost favorability of e-Learning in contrast to other forms of learning, there must first be an understanding of the components and elements for building an e-Learning course. Without first taking this step, studies lack the essential financial accounting rigor for course planning and have an inconsistent basis for comparison. This study aimed to (1) establish standard ingredients for the cost of e-Learning course production and (2) determine the variance instructional design has on the production costs of e-Learning courses.

Methods: This study made use of a cross-case method among 3 case studies using mixed methods, including horizontal budget variance calculation and qualitative interpretation of responses from course designers for budget variance using total quality management themes. The different implementation-specific aspects of these cases were used to establish common principles in the composition of budgets in the production and delivery of an applied health professional e-Learning course.

Results: A total of 2 case studies reported significant negative budget variances caused by issues surrounding underreporting of personnel costs, inaccurate resource task estimation, lack of contingency planning, challenges in third-party resource management, and the need to update health-related materials that became outdated during course production. The third study reported a positive budget variance because of the cost efficiency derived from previous implementation, the strong working relationship of the course project team, and the use of iterative project management methods.

Conclusions: This research suggests that the delivery costs of an e-Learning course could be underestimated or underreported and identifies factors that could be used to better control budgets. Through consistent management of factors affecting the cost of course production, further research could be undertaken using standard economic evaluation methods to evaluate the advantages of using e-Learning.

Keywords: costs and cost analysis; distance education; economics; education; online education; online learning; professional education.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Isolating variance during project stage to total quality management criteria.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cross-case synthesis. MOOC: massive open online course; SPOC: small private online course.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Chen L, Evans D, Evans T, Sadana R, Stilwell B, Travis P, Van Lerberghe W, Zurn P. Working together for health. In: Evans T, editor. The World Health Report 2006. Switzerland: Thomson Prentice; 2006. pp. 1–237.
    1. Dakin H, Gray A. decision making for healthcare resource allocation: joint v separate decisions on interacting interventions. Med Decis Making. 2018 Dec;38(4):476–86. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18758018. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29683792 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Al-Shorbaji N, Atun R, Car J, Majeed A, Wheeler E. In: eLearning for Undergraduate Health Professional Education - A Systematic Review Informing a Radical Transformation of Health Workforce Development. Al-Shorbaji N, editor. Switzerland: World Health Organisation; 2015. pp. 1–156.
    1. Sangrà A, Vlachopoulos D, Cabrera N. Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: an approach to the conceptual framework. Int Rev Res Open Distr Learn. 2012;13:146–59. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1161/2146
    1. Alturkistani Abrar, Majeed A, Car J, Brindley D, Wells G, Meinert E. data collection approaches to enable evaluation of a massive open online course about data science for continuing education in health care: case study. JMIR Med Educ. 2019 Apr 2;5(1):e10982. doi: 10.2196/10982. http://mededu.jmir.org/2019/1/e10982/ v5i1e10982 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types