Utility Of E-learning in Community Medicine: A Mixed Methods Assessment Among Indian Medical Students

Abstract

Introduction:We conducted this study to assess the utility of e-learning as a teaching and learning method in Community Medicine using quantitative and qualitative methods. Methods: We carried out a cross sectional study to fulfill the study objectives for a period of three months. The study participants were undergraduate students of a Private Medical College, who were exposed to e-learning conducted by the Department of Community Medicine. Thus, we invited a total of 437 students to take part in this study. A self-administered, pre-tested, pre-designed and validated questionnaire was used for quantitative assessment. Qualitative assessment was conducted by a Force Field Analysis (FFA) on a subset of the study population. Results: A total of 323 medical students participated in the study, of which 82.35% believed that they were confident overall in using a computer, 78.33% considered themselves as having good computer skills. Majority utilized e-learning (76.16%) while 81.74% reported that they are confident in use of e-learning. Demonstration videos if uploaded would be useful according to 76.78% of the study participants. Most of the study participants agreed that e-learning is useful (62.29%). Through FFA, we were able to identify certain key driving forces associated with e-learning use. Moreover, factors like lack of user friendliness and a slow network were identified as restraining forces. Conclusion: Majority were of the opinion that e-learning is an effective learning tool. However, successful execution of an e-learning programme can be ensured if the barriers are overcome and orientation programmes are conducted.

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

“…Only two studies mentioned using models to underpin their evaluation processes, namely, the SWOT analysis [ 20 ], the Kirk Patrick model [ 33 ] and the force field analysis [ 21 ]. Most of the studies applied mixed methods research [ 18 , 21 , 22 ], while others used quantitative methods [ 18 , 23 ] and qualitative methods [ 20 ]. Seven domains, each with a specific theme, were generated inductively after engaging with the individual themes from each included article [ 32 ].…”

“…There are similarities between the domains from this review and some of the popular standards used in high-income countries [ 28 ]. The similarity in these standards may be due to models and theories related to evaluation that are often transferred from high-income countries to low-income counties under the guise of confirmed validity [ 20 , 22 ]. In addition, there are reported similarities among undergraduate e-learning programmes in the health professions between high- and low-income countries, supporting the findings from this review on the similarity of evaluation standards.…”

“…The second domain from this review relates to the infrastructure for learning. Several authors described the necessary infrastructure for learning as part of the evaluation standards for their e-learning programmes [ 20 , 22 , 23 , 31 ]. This infrastructure included equipment, information technology (IT) and network infrastructure, an independent learning management system and skilful human resources.…”

“…This infrastructure included equipment, information technology (IT) and network infrastructure, an independent learning management system and skilful human resources. In addition, other authors focused on the ease of accessing and using a specific infrastructure for learning [ 20 , 22 , 23 ]. Raghuveer and Nirgude [ 22 ] further mention the need for a variety of content material to be included and for compliance with principles and intellectual property.…”

“…In addition, other authors focused on the ease of accessing and using a specific infrastructure for learning [ 20 , 22 , 23 ]. Raghuveer and Nirgude [ 22 ] further mention the need for a variety of content material to be included and for compliance with principles and intellectual property. Wafsy et al [ 32 ] describe the need for financial resources allocated for online learning.…”