Undergraduate e-learning programmes in health professions: An integrative review of evaluation standards in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND

Before the Coronavirus COVID-19, universities offered blended learning as a mode of study. However, with the closure of all educational institutions, after the pandemic, most of these institutions were required to transition to e-learning to support continuous student learning. This transition was challenging to most institutions, as there were no standards to ensure the quality of e-learning. During this literature review, the researcher aimed to explore relevant literature and provide insight into the standards for undergraduate e-learning programmes in the health professions.

DESIGN

An integrative review of literature.

DATA SOURCES

Online databases MEDLINE, CINAHL with full text, Academic search ultimate, APA PsycInfo, ERIC, Health Source: Nursing/academic edition, CAB abstracts, Africa-wide information, Sociology source ultimate, and Communication and Mass media complete were searched.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies pertaining to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) on standards in evaluating undergraduate e-learning programmes in health professions, published between January 2010 to June 2022, were considered. A two-step process was followed involving three reviewers and guided by an inclusion criteria focused on the evaluation of undergraduate e-learning programmes in the health professions. The initial hit produced 610 articles altogether, and eight articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Data was then extracted and analysed, and key themes were identified.

RESULTS

Eight Key themes related to LMIC standards emerged from the eight selected articles: curriculum planning, proficiency of educators, learner proficiency and attitude, infrastructure for learning, support and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

In this review, we synthesised standards that have been used for evaluating undergraduate e-learning programmes in health professions in LMICs. A gap in standards related to clinical teaching and learning in undergraduate e-learning programmes in the health professions was evident from all the included articles. The identification of the eight unique LMIC standards in this review could contribute to guiding towards contextually appropriate quality e-learning programmes in the health professions.