Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

EDITORIALS

Traditional or digital health care education?

Shead, Dorothy A.1,2; Olivier, Benita1,3

Author Information
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00118
  • Free

Digital technology has affected the way in which health care is implemented,1 and as a result, has similarly demanded health sciences education adapt to these changes in response.2

The pathway to clinical competency for undergraduate allied health students has largely mirrored the medical education approach, and both have moved into the digital age. There is ongoing discussion as to how training curricula can be adapted to address medical professionals’ preparedness for technological interaction with a digitally savvy patient community and how educators can deliver such knowledge.3 There is no doubt that there is a need for health professionals to become more technologically competent, and this must be addressed by appropriate health care education.4

Recently, a JBI scoping review identified that a range of teaching methods and theories were utilized in the teaching of postgraduate health science students.5 It also revealed that educators were open to the use of innovative teaching methods. In this regard, microlearning across medical and allied professions6 has been recommended, and interrogation of high-fidelity simulation across disciplines has been proposed7 or achieved, with both positive8 and negative9 outcomes reported.

The topic of health care education is vast. It encompasses input from many different health care disciplines with diverse interventions carried out and outcomes realized. The scoping review format is most suited to the mapping and synthesis of such data.

In this issue of JBI Evidence Synthesis, scoping reviews explore different perspectives on allied health care students’ education.10,11 One addresses the long-standing inclusion of undergraduate anatomy education for physiotherapy students,10 whereas another reviews the use of digital technologies used to teach undergraduate and postgraduate physiotherapy and occupational therapy students.11

The scoping review by Shead et al.10 sourced 54 papers from 1980 to 2019 that were grouped into eight categories: interprofessional education; team-based learning; peer teaching/mentoring/tutoring; computer-assisted learning; multimodal and blended learning; curriculum, pedagogy, and materials; clinical input; and professional behaviors, ethics, and humanistic aspects. Eight studies incorporated the use of interprofessional education. Team-based learning, although used in two studies exclusively, was incorporated into many other areas such as interprofessional learning and peer teaching. Clinical, ethical, and professional behavior considerations highlighted the continuing need for the humanistic aspects of health care to be addressed. The curricular and pedagogical studies revealed that the use of traditional pedagogy, such as dissection, is on the decline. The use of blended learning, asynchronous online discussion, interactive videos, the identification of computer-assisted learning, and the concept of the flipped classroom fit well with the more modern and innovative technologies investigated by the Olivier et al.11 scoping review.

Olivier et al.11 found 52 studies pertaining to undergraduate or postgraduate health care education published between 2013 and 2018. Three main data categories were reported: type of technology used, application of digital technology, and author-reported outcomes. The review identified many types of technologies being used for several purposes: to deliver focused topics; ascertain learning feedback; assess clinical sessions, practical techniques, and skills; develop community learning with peer support and shared learning; and develop professional behaviors. This review documented a wide variety of software, learning management systems, mobile devices, electronic communication platforms, and repositories related to the delivery of digital content for the identified student groups. It concluded that digital technology was widely implemented in physiotherapy and occupational therapy education with positive, negative, and neutral outcomes. However, the efficacy of such technological interventions can be influenced by extraneous factors, such as student anxiety, and by feasibility of implementing such strategies, taking costs into consideration. Furthermore, face-to-face interaction with peers and lecturers is still a desirable feature of learning.

Health care education is constantly evolving. With the advent of the digital age, more emphasis is being placed on teaching methods that involve simulation and digital presentation. These methods need to be aligned to student learning outcome results.11 Recent JBI scoping reviews reveal a skewed perspective, with studies mainly presenting data and conclusions from first-world countries.8,10,11 The personable aspects of treating patients must not be lost in the myriad of digital technology, as the humanistic aspect of health care is the bedrock of social responsiveness. Hence, a combination of the best of both teaching methodologies might be the answer.

References

1. Goy A, Nishtar S, Dzau VJ. Health and healthcare in the fourth industrial revolution: global future council on the future of health and healthcare 2016–2018. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum; 2019.
2. Diño MJS, Ong IL. Research, technology, education & scholarship in the Fourth Industrial Revolution [4IR]: influences in nursing and the health sciences. J Med Invest 2019; 66 (1.2):3–7.
3. Han E, Yeo S, Kim M, Lee Y-H, Park K, Roh H. Medical education trends for future physicians in the era of advanced technology and artificial intelligence: an integrative review. BMC Med Educ 2019; 19 (1):460.
4. Mesko B, Györffy Z, Kollár J. Digital literacy in the medical curriculum: a course with social media tools and gamification. JMIR Med Educ 2015; 1 (2):e6.
5. McInerney P, Green-Thompson LP. Theories of learning and teaching methods used in postgraduate education in the health sciences: a scoping review. JBI Evid Synth 2020; 18 (1):1–29.
6. De Gange JC, Woodward A, Park HK, Sun H, Yamane SS. Microlearning in health professions education: a scoping review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2019; 17 (6):1018–1025.
7. Roberts F, Cooper K. The effect of high fidelity simulated learning methods on physiotherapy preregistration education: a systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2017; 15 (11):2613–2618.
8. Mori B, Carnahan H, Herold J. Use of simulation learning experiences in physical therapy entry-to-practice curricula: a systematic review. Physiother Can 2015; 67 (2):194–202.
9. Massoth C, Röder H, Ohlenburg H, Hessler M, Zarbock A, Pöpping DM, et al. High-fidelity is not superior to low-fidelity simulation but leads to overconfidence in medical students. BMC Med Educ 2019; 19 (1):29.
10. Shead DA, Roos R, Olivier B, Ihunwo IO. Curricular and pedagogical aspects of gross anatomy education for undergraduate physiotherapy students: a scoping review. JBI Evid Synth 2020; 18 (5):893–951.
11. Olivier B, Verdonk M, Caseleijn D. Digital technologies in undergraduate and postgraduate education in occupational therapy and physiotherapy: a scoping review. JBI Evid Synth 2020; 18 (5):863–892.
© 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute.