Exploring the Cost of eLearning in Health Professions Education: Scoping Review

Abstract

Background Existing research on the costs associated with the design and deployment of eLearning in health professions education is limited. The relative costs of these learning platforms to those of face-to-face learning are also not well understood. The lack of predefined costing models used for eLearning cost data capture has made it difficult to complete cost evaluation. Objective The key aim of this scoping review was to explore the state of evidence concerning cost capture within eLearning in health professions education. The review explores the available data to define cost calculations related to eLearning. Methods The scoping review was performed using a search strategy with Medical Subject Heading terms and related keywords centered on eLearning and cost calculation with a population scope of health professionals in all countries. The search was limited to articles published in English. No restriction was placed on literature publication date. Results In total, 7344 articles were returned from the original search of the literature. Of these, 232 were relevant to associated keywords or abstract references following screening. Full-text review resulted in 168 studies being excluded. Of these, 61 studies were excluded because they were unrelated to eLearning and focused on general education. In addition, 103 studies were excluded because of lack of detailed information regarding costs; these studies referred to cost in ways either indicating cost favorability or unfavorability, but without data to support findings. Finally, 4 studies were excluded because of limited cost data that were insufficient for analysis. In total, 42 studies provided data and analysis of the impact of cost and value in health professions education. The most common data source was total cost of training (n=29). Other sources included cost per learner, referring to the cost for individual students (n=13). The population most frequently cited was medical students (n=15), although 12 articles focused on multiple populations. A further 22 studies provide details of costing approaches for the production and delivery of eLearning. These studies offer insight into the ways eLearning has been budgeted and project-managed through implementation. Conclusions Although cost is a recognized factor in studies detailing eLearning design and implementation, the way cost is captured is inconsistent. Despite a perception that eLearning is more cost-effective than face-to-face instruction, there is not yet sufficient evidence to assert this conclusively. A rigorous, repeatable data capture method is needed, in addition to a means to leverage existing economic evaluation methods that can then test eLearning cost-effectiveness and how to implement eLearning with cost benefits and advantages over traditional instruction.

Digital adaptation of teaching disaster and deployment medicine under COVID-19 conditions: a comparative evaluation over 5 years

“…Since sophisticated online teaching media are often time-consuming to create [ 31 ], scientifically supported development should begin promptly. In particular, the possibilities of virtual reality, augmented reality or serious games should be the focus [ 27 , 32 , 33 ].…”

Cost and Cost-effectiveness of eLearning Interventions for Healthcare Workers in Low- and Middle-income Countries: a Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…The healthcare workers must adjust and cope by taking advantage of innovative technologies such as eLearning education systems (9,17). Information on cost and cost-effectiveness may further help to estimate the investment needed for successful eLearning interventions (4,18).…”

“…eLearning is de ned as virtual learning in which all course work is completed through online content, allowing for the use of eLearning materials without the need for face-to-face classroom learning (4).…”

“…Nevertheless, evidence on the cost and cost-effectiveness of eLearning is still not clear (10). A recent scoping review has attempted to map evidence on cost and cost effectiveness of eLearning, but, deduced inconsistent heterogeneous results that required another method for further investigation (4). We propose to conduct a study aimed at systematically exploring evidence on the cost and cost-effectiveness of eLearning interventions for healthcare workers.…”

Cost Measurements in Production and Delivery of a Massive Open Online Course (Mooc) for Teaching the Relationship Between Human Health and Climate Change: A Case Study

“…The research design was structured to investigate how the total costs for the production and delivery of the MOOC were calculated. In line with previous findings and evidence from the literature on the insufficient nature of budgets as means of determining that the total cost of education delivery (Levin, McEwan, Belfield, Bowden, & Shand, 2017;Meinert, Reeves, Eerens, Banks, Maloney, Rivers, Ilic, Walsh, Majeed, Car, 2019), the core proposition of the investigation was focused on measuring an expected variance between cost of delivery from budget in course production, influenced by the nature of iterative development of eLearning and potential underreporting of costs. To test this principle, the 'ingredients method' (Levin et al, 2017) was used to capture all the components of the cost of production.…”