Digital and blended curriculum delivery in health professions education: an umbrella review with implications for Doctor of Physical Therapy education programs

Identifying Research Priorities in Digital Education for Health Care: Umbrella Review and Modified Delphi Method Study

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the use of digital technology in the education of health care professionals has surged, partly driven by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is still a need for focused research to establish evidence of its effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to define the gaps in the evidence for the efficacy of digital education and to identify priority areas where future research has the potential to contribute to our understanding and use of digital education.

METHODS

We used a 2-stage approach to identify research priorities. First, an umbrella review of the recent literature (published between 2020 and 2023) was performed to identify and build on existing work. Second, expert consensus on the priority research questions was obtained using a modified Delphi method.

RESULTS

A total of 8857 potentially relevant papers were identified. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology, we included 217 papers for full review. All papers were either systematic reviews or meta-analyses. A total of 151 research recommendations were extracted from the 217 papers. These were analyzed, recategorized, and consolidated to create a final list of 63 questions. From these, a modified Delphi process with 42 experts was used to produce the top-five rated research priorities: (1) How do we measure the learning transfer from digital education into the clinical setting? (2) How can we optimize the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning to facilitate education and training? (3) What are the methodological requirements for high-quality rigorous studies assessing the outcomes of digital health education? (4) How does the design of digital education interventions (eg, format and modality) in health professionals' education and training curriculum affect learning outcomes? and (5) How should learning outcomes in the field of health professions' digital education be defined and standardized?

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a prioritized list of research gaps in digital education in health care, which will be of use to researchers, educators, education providers, and funding agencies. Additional proposals are discussed regarding the next steps needed to advance this agenda, aiming to promote meaningful and practical research on the use of digital technologies and drive excellence in health care education.

Clinical Instructor Perceptions of Preparedness, Performance, and Professionalism of Doctor of Physical Therapy Students from a 2-Year Hybrid Program: A Mixed Methods Study

Objective

Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) education models vary in length, philosophy, and delivery. The purpose of this study was to explore clinical instructor (CI) perceptions of performance in DPT students from a 2-year hybrid program.

Methods

In this mixed methods phenomenological study, data from eight cohorts of students were examined. Correlation analysis was used to examine the relationship between CI background (experience, degree, certification) and their perception of student preparedness for clinical experiences. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare CI perception of preparedness between CI groups. Subjects participated in semi-structured interviews and data were organized using inductive coding prior to analysis.

Results

Analysis included 1711 records. The majority of CIs noted students were prepared for clinical experiences (96.3%) and were as prepared or more prepared than students from a 3-year on-site program (89.0%). There were no differences in CI perception based on CI background. Qualitative analysis from 22 interviews revealed four CI perception themes: preparedness, performance, professionalism, and clinical reasoning. Almost all CIs reported that students from a 2-year hybrid program were as strong or stronger than students from a 3-year residential/on-site program. If the CI had a negative performance expectation of the 2-year hybrid student before the rotation, almost all changed to a positive impression following rotation.

Conclusions

CI perception is that students from a 2-year hybrid program are as strong or stronger than students from a 3-year residential/on-site program. Our findings suggest clinical preparedness, performance, and professionalism of 2-year hybrid DPT students meet or exceed CI expectations.

A Comparative Analysis of Physical Therapy Anatomical Knowledge and Retention: Human Donor Dissection Versus Virtual Laboratory

INTRODUCTION

Despite a long history of using human donor dissection (HDD) for physical therapy (PT) anatomy education, there are no PT guidelines that require HDD. The purpose of this quantitative causal-comparative study was to determine if Doctor of Physical Therapy students who used HDD had different grades both within anatomy and within courses that require retention and application of anatomical knowledge (kinesiology and a foundational musculoskeletal course) compared with those who used virtual 3-dimensional anatomical software (VAS).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Numerous factors affect the decision to use HDD within PT anatomy, and few PT studies have compared the effectiveness of VAS to HDD.

SUBJECTS

All students who took anatomy in an entry-level PT program from 2018 to 2021 (232 total students, 115 who used HDD in 2018-2019 and 117 who used VAS in 2020-2021).

METHODS

Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare anatomy grades (course, written examination, and practical examination) and future grades in kinesiology and a foundational musculoskeletal course for students who used HDD or VAS.

RESULTS

Physical therapy students who used VAS had statistically significant higher anatomy course grades (VAS 93.81% ± 4.99% to HDD 92.20% ± 4.53%) and higher practical examination grades (VAS 97.43% ± 2.91% to HDD 93.55% ± 4.39%) compared with those who used HDD. However, there were no significant differences between groups on written anatomy examinations (VAS 89.42% ± 7.21% to HDD 90.40% ± 4.94%), kinesiology grades (VAS 91.86% ± 4.52% to HDD 92.80% ± 4.27%), or foundational musculoskeletal grades (VAS 89.50% ± 3.89% to HDD 89.77% ± 3.83%).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The causal-comparative study design prevents concluding that PT student grade differences were due exclusively to either anatomy laboratory method. It does provide preliminary evidence that the PT anatomy laboratory method did not practically affect anatomy performance or long-term application of anatomy knowledge in future coursework.

The Impact of Virtual Laboratories on Student Clinical Education Preparedness: A Mixed-Method Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic saw physical therapist (PT) education programs in 2020 add virtual options to prepare students for hands-on clinical skills. The purpose of this research was to investigate student confidence, preparation, and clinical performance based on their choice of virtual or in-person laboratory immersion. Secondary analysis compared 2020 cohort outcomes with the previous cohort in 2019 (prepandemic).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Virtual skill acquisition has been studied with support for effectiveness in didactic and psychomotor skill acquisition. The impact on clinical education performance is unknown.

SUBJECTS

Student records from an accelerated hybrid, PT education program in 2020 (n = 91) and 2019 (n = 86).

METHODS

In this mixed-method observational study, researchers analyzed a Qualtrics survey and the PT Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) to compare student outcomes. Statistical analyses included chi-square, two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and Mann-Whitney U test. MAXQDA software was used to code student and clinical instructor narrative responses from the CPI related to strengths and areas for further development.

RESULTS

All students in 2020 attended laboratory virtually for 9 full days, and 24% of students chose virtual laboratory for the remaining 8.5 days; 97% of students reported feeling confident going into their clinical experience (66% inpatient). No statistically significant differences were found based on instructional method (virtual or in-person) or clinical practice setting (inpatient or outpatient) for confidence, preparation, or CPI performance. Themes of wanting more time to prepare and more confidence in clinical decision making emerged from the qualitative analysis.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Results indicate no statistically significant difference for virtual versus in-person laboratory and no difference compared with the 2019 cohort. Virtual instruction effectively prepared students for their clinical experiences across all settings. Although an in-person laboratory experience may be preferred, it is possible to deliver effective experiences in a virtual setting without compromising student performance. Further research is needed to confirm findings.