A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review of: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? BEME Guide No. 52

Maudsley, Gillian, Taylor, David CM ORCID: 0000-0002-3296-2963, Allam, Omnia, Garner, Jayne, Calinici, Tudor and Linkman, Ken (2019) A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review of: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? BEME Guide No. 52. Medical Teacher, 41 (2). pp. 125-140.

Access the full-text of this item by clicking on the Open Access link.

	Text Final-BEME review--Mobile devices-amended--Sep 2018.pdf - Author Accepted Manuscript Download (493kB)
	Text Supplementary material Appendix 1 Key-terms.pdf - Author Accepted Manuscript Download (215kB)
	Text Supplementary material Appendix 2 Data extraction table.pdf - Author Accepted Manuscript Download (454kB)

Abstract

Background: Ingrained assumptions about clinical placements (clerkships) for health professions students pursuing primary basic qualifications might undermine best educational use of mobile devices. Question: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? Methods: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) effectiveness-review of ‘justification’ complemented by ‘clarification’ and ‘description’ research searched: MEDLINE, ERIC (Educational Resource Information Center), Web of Science, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, Scopus (1988-2016). Reviewer-pairs screened titles/abstracts. One pair coded, extracted, and synthesized evidence, working within the pragmatism paradigm. Summary of results: From screening 2,279 abstracts, 49 articles met inclusion-criteria, counting four systematic reviews for context. The 45 articles of at least Kirkpatrick K2 primary research mostly contributed K3 (39/45, 86.7%), mixed methods (21/45, 46.7%), and S4-strength (about one-half) evidence. Mobile devices particularly supported student: assessment; communication; clinical decision-making; logbook/notetaking; and accessing information (in about two-thirds). Informal and hidden curricula included: ---concerns about: disapproval; confidentiality and privacy; security ---distraction by social connectivity and busy clinical settings; ---mixed messages about policy. Discussion & Conclusion: This idiosyncratic evidence-base of modest robustness suggested that mobile devices provide potentially powerful educational support on clinical placement, particularly with student transitions, metalearning, and care contribution. Explicit policy must tackle informal and hidden curricula though, addressing concerns about transgressions.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Humans, Attitude of Health Personnel, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Communication, Clinical Clerkship, Clinical Competence, Students, Health Occupations, Computers, Handheld, Documentation, Health Personnel, Evidence-Based Practice, Social Media, Clinical Decision-Making
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	20 Sep 2018 10:37
Last Modified:	19 Jan 2023 01:16
DOI:	10.1080/0142159X.2018.1508829
Open Access URL:	https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1508829
Related URLs:	Author Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3026509

Available Versions of this Item

• A BEME (Best Evidence Medical Education) systematic review of: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? (deposited 05 Jun 2018 09:41)
  • A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review of: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? BEME Guide No. 52. (deposited 20 Sep 2018 10:37) [Currently Displayed]