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). 125 - 140.

This is the latest version of this item.

[img] Text
Final-BEME review--Mobile devices-amended--Sep 2018.pdf - Accepted Version

Download (493kB)
[img] Text
Supplementary material Appendix 1 Key-terms.pdf - Accepted Version

Download (215kB)
[img] Text
Supplementary material Appendix 2 Data extraction table.pdf - Accepted Version

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
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 20 Sep 2018 10:37
Last Modified: 09 Jan 2021 05:26
DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1508829
Open Access URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1508829
Related URLs:
URI: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3026509

Available Versions of this Item