Questions of Well-Being and Inclusion in Online Undergraduate Medical Education During COVID-19: A 2-Phased Focused Scoping Review
- PMID: 36538670
- DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005119
Questions of Well-Being and Inclusion in Online Undergraduate Medical Education During COVID-19: A 2-Phased Focused Scoping Review
Abstract
Purpose: Undergraduate medical education (UGME) was transformed by the rapid move to online curriculum delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most research on online UGME has focused on measuring its effectiveness. However, medical educators also require evidence regarding its implications with respect to well-being and inclusion.
Method: To explore online learning transition, particularly the effect on well-being and inclusion, this 2-phased focused scoping review employed a revised Joanna Briggs Institute approach: (1) developing review questions and objectives; (2) determining eligibility criteria; (3) developing the search strategy; (4) extracting, analyzing, and discussing findings; (5) drawing conclusions; and (6) discussing implications for practice and further research.
Results: The review ultimately included 217 articles, of which 107 (49%) explored student and staff well-being during online UGME, 64 (30%) focused on inclusion in this context, and 46 (21%) examined both well-being and inclusion. Additionally, 137 of included articles (63%) were research/evaluation, 48 (22%) were descriptive, and 32 (15%) were opinion. Of the 137 research/evaluation studies, 115 (84%) were quantitative, 10 (7%) were qualitative, 8 (6%) were mixed methods, and 4 (3%) were Reviews. Among these research/evaluation studies, the most commonly used data collection method was surveys (n = 120), followed by academic tests (n = 14). Other methods included interviews (n = 6), focus groups (n = 4), written reflections (n = 3), user data (n = 1), and blood tests (n = 1).
Conclusions: Important questions remain regarding the safety and inclusiveness of online learning spaces and approaches, particularly for members of historically excluded groups and learners in low-resource settings. More rigorous, theoretically informed research in online medical education is required to better understand the social implications of online medical education, including more in-depth, qualitative investigations about well-being and inclusion and more strategies for ensuring online spaces are safe, inclusive, and supportive.
Copyright © 2023 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
References
-
- Yardley S, Teunissen PW, Dornan T. Experiential learning: AMEE guide no. 63. Med Teach. 2012;34:e102–e115.
-
- MacLeod A, Cameron P, Kits O, Tummons J. Technologies of exposure: Videoconferenced distributed medical education as a sociomaterial practice. Acad Med. 2019;94:412–418.
-
- Darras KE, Spouge R, Hatala R, et al. Integrated virtual and cadaveric dissection laboratories enhance first year medical students’ anatomy experience: A pilot study. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:1–6.
-
- Cook DA, Garside S, Levinson AJ, Dupras DM, Montori VM. What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Med Educ. 2010;44:765–774.
-
- MacLeod A, Kits O, Mann K, Tummons J, Wilson KW. The invisible work of distributed medical education: Exploring the contributions of audiovisual professionals, administrative professionals and faculty teachers. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2017;22:623–638.
Reference cited only in Figure 1
-
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical