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

Abstract

BACKGROUND Existing research on the costs of delivering courses online courses is limited. The way in which these learning platforms compare in cost to face-to-face learning is also poorly understood. This lack of data has made it difficult to evaluate whether the investments spent by organisations on online learning are effective in comparison to face-to-face instruction. OBJECTIVE The key aim of this scoping literature review is to better understand the state of evidence about whether eLearning demonstrates cost advantages over face-to-face instruction and report the results of a research question centred on: What data exists to define cost calculations related to eLearning? Specifically, we investigate the extent to which the literature can provide details for calculation of the costs for eLearning design, development, and delivery. METHODS Scoping review using a search strategy of MeSH terms and related keywords centred on eLearning and cost calculation with a population scope of health professionals in all countries. The search was limited to English language studies. 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 to cost following screening. Full-text review resulted in 168 studies being excluded, with 42 studies providing data and analysis of the impact of cost and value in health professions education. A further 22 studies provided details of costing approaches for the production and delivery of eLearning. CONCLUSIONS There is an emerging body of studies capturing costs in eLearning. However, costs in these studies were collected inconsistently and in relation to a wide variety of factors or had an alternate study-related focus. Although there is 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 and data capture method is needed, in addition to a means to leverage existing economic evaluation methods that can then test whether eLearning cost-effectiveness and how to implement with cost benefits and advantages over traditional instruction. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

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

“…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.…”

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

“…e-Learning research consistently refers to the promise and opportunity of its cost-effectiveness in contrast to face-to-face instruction; however, the underlying data supporting the costs necessary for their delivery are not well understood [8]. To implement further economic evaluation to understand proprieties demonstrating the value of e-Learning in contrast to other learning types, it is first necessary to develop a standard means of calculating costs in the delivery of these types of projects.…”

“…Existing research literature indicates challenges in the capture of total costs for the production of Web-based learning despite standard methods for cost calculation [8]. The reason for this variance is likely because the skills required to create instructional learning design and to capture costs are different, and educators are not trained in cost accounting methods.…”

“…A course delivered digitally versus the cost of a lecturer providing face-to-face instruction appears to have long-term cost favorability [7]. The literature often suggests that a benefit of Web-based learning is its cost-effectiveness compared with face-to-face instruction [8]; however, there is limited evidence validating comparison with other forms of instruction or standards for the budgeting of the costs in the production and execution of e-Learning courses. In the case of massive open online courses (MOOCs), there is limited evidence on the costs associated with their production [9].…”

“…The study’s aims and objectives intend to address a gap in the research literature concerning implementation details on planning and executing e-Learning in health professions education [8]. In addition to limited cost-centered studies on e-Learning for health professions education, there are limited details on how course designers and producers are calculating the associated costs for production of these course types.…”