BackgroundBlended learning describes a combination of teaching methods, often utilizing digital technologies. Research suggests that learner outcomes can be improved through some blended learning formats. However, the cost-effectiveness of delivering blended learning is unclear.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of a face-to-face learning and blended learning approach for evidence-based medicine training within a medical program.MethodsThe economic evaluation was conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the evidence-based medicine (EBM) competency of medical students who participated in two different modes of education delivery. In the traditional face-to-face method, students received ten 2-hour classes. In the blended learning approach, students received the same total face-to-face hours but with different activities and additional online and mobile learning. Online activities utilized YouTube and a library guide indexing electronic databases, guides, and books. Mobile learning involved self-directed interactions with patients in their regular clinical placements. The attribution and differentiation of costs between the interventions within the RCT was measured in conjunction with measured outcomes of effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated comparing the ongoing operation costs of each method with the level of EBM proficiency achieved. Present value analysis was used to calculate the break-even point considering the transition cost and the difference in ongoing operation cost.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that it costs 24% less to educate a student to the same level of EBM competency via the blended learning approach used in the study, when excluding transition costs. The sunk cost of approximately AUD $40,000 to transition to the blended model exceeds any savings from using the approach within the first year of its implementation; however, a break-even point is achieved within its third iteration and relative savings in the subsequent years. The sensitivity analysis indicates that approaches with higher transition costs, or staffing requirements over that of a traditional method, are likely to result in negative value propositions.ConclusionsUnder the study conditions, a blended learning approach was more cost-effective to operate and resulted in improved value for the institution after the third year iteration, when compared to the traditional face-to-face model. The wider applicability of the findings are dependent on the type of blended learning utilized, staffing expertise, and educational context.

No abstract

No abstract

Healthcare and health professions education share many of the same problems in decision making. In both cases, there is a finite amount of resources, and so choices need to be made between alternatives. To navigate the options available requires effective decision making. Choosing one option requires consideration of its opportunity cost -the benefit forgone of the other competing options.The purpose of this guide is to introduce educational decision-makers to the economic concept of cost, and how to read studies about educational costs to inform effective cost-conscious decision-making.This guide leads with a brief review of study designs commonly utilised in this field of research, followed by an overview of how study findings are commonly presented. The tutorial will then offer a four-step model for appraising and considering the results of an economic evaluation. It asks the questions: 1) Can I trust the results? 2) What are the results telling me? 3) Could the results be transferred to my context? 4) Should I change my practice?Educational decision-makers are uniquely positioned to create change in teaching and learning practices. Data published from economic evaluations can be a powerful decision-making aide. As the number of studies that examine the cost and value of health professions education grows, education decision-makers will require increasing skill in understanding, appraising, and considering the study findings, to ensure that educational activities achieve optimal value for a given spend. PRACTICE POINTS1. The main reason to consider cost and value in health professions education is to ensure that teaching and assessment deliver optional educational value for a given spend.5. Appraising a study's reporting of costs can be assisted by asking 1) How were the interventions cost-items identified? 2) how were the cost items measured? And 3) how were the cost items priced?6. Uncertainty around point estimates of cost and value is evaluated through the sensitivity analysis, which considers the impact of varying assumptions and conditions. Decision-makers should consider the sensitivity scenario which best aligns with their own context, to better interpret study transferability.7. Value is highly context dependent, and decisions concerning the uptake or rejection of an educational innovation are ultimately affected by factors and forces beyond effectiveness and costs.

Strong economic links for multiple stakeholders as a result of failure by students in clinical education have been identified. The cost burden is skewed in the direction of students. Any generalisation of these results should be made with consideration for the unique clinical education context in which each health professional education programme operates.