1Multidisciplinary Laboratory in Sciences and Information, Communication and Education Technology, Faculty of Sciences Ben M’Sik, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco
2Laboratory of Physical Chemistry of Materials, Faculty of Sciences Ben M’Sik, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco
3Observatory of Research in Interdisciplinary Didactics and University Pedagogy, Faculty of Sciences Ben M’Sik, Hassan II University of Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco
4Laboratory of Biostatistics, Clinical Research and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of Rabat, Mohamed V University, Rabat, Morocco
5High Institute of Nursing Professions and Technical Health, Agadir, Morocco
© 2021 Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Scopus:
(TITLE-ABS (e-learning OR "online learning" OR "distance learning" OR "distance education")) AND (TITLE-ABS ("medical education" OR "nurs* education")) AND (TITLE-ABS (covid-19 OR "2019-novel coronavirus" OR 2019-ncov OR sars-cov-2))
PubMed:
((e-Learning[Title/Abstract] OR "online learning"[Title/Abstract] OR "distance learning"[Title/Abstract] OR "distance education"[Title/Abstract]) AND ("medical education" [Title/Abstract] OR "nursing education"[Title/Abstract])) AND (covid-19 [Title/Abstract] OR "2019-novel coronavirus" [Title/Abstract] OR 2019-ncov [Title/Abstract] OR sars-cov-2[Title/Abstract]).
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization: AN, MR, GC. Data curation: AN, AK. Methodology, Formal analysis, validation: AN, AK, MR. Funding acquisition: not applicable. Writing–original draft: AN, GC. Writing–review & editing: AN, MR, AK, GC.
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Funding
None.
Data availability
None.
Study (year) | Country | Study design | Discipline | No. of participants | Instructional design | Used platform | Results | Measurement instruments | Main domains and/or items of questionnaire |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abbasi et al. [11] (2020) | Pakistan | CSS | Medicine and dentistry | Medical students: 204 | Fully online course | NR | P | 23-item questionnaire, developed by the authors (5-point Likert scale) | Future learning preferences, comparison of e-learning with traditional teaching, quality and impact of e-learning, student-teacher interactions, online teaching security |
Dental students: 178 | |||||||||
Anwar et al. [12] (2021) | Pakistan | CSS | Medicine and dentistry | 283 | Fully online course | NR | P | 20-item questionnaire, developed by the authors based on the original version of Watkins and his colleagues (5-point Likert scale) | Technology access, online skills and relationships, students’ views and students’ perceptions of possible advantages of e-learning |
Buthelezi et al. [13] (2021) | South Africa | CSS | Nursing | 60 | Fully online course | Moodle | P | Questionnaire with 23 items, designed by the authors (4-point Likert scale) | Computer access, frequency of use, prior exposure to e-learning platforms, anxiety and attitude towards technology, perceived computer self-efficacy |
Chandrasinghe et al. [14] (2020) | Sri Lanka | CSS | Medicine | 1,047 | Fully online course | Zoom, Facebook | A | Questionnaire designed by the authors | Relevance and importance of the topic, students’ discussions and clinical sense, discussion and knowledge and understanding of the topic |
Dost et al. [15] (2020) | UK | CSS | Medicine | 2,721 | Fully online course | NR | P/E | 20-item questionnaire, developed by the authors based in part on the Ready Education Environment Measure (5-point Likert scale) | The use and experience of online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived benefits and barriers of online teaching |
Gupta et al. [16] (2021) | India | CSS | Medicine | 248 | Fully online course | NR | P | 22-item online survey developed by the authors (5-point Likert scale) | Time spent on online and offline learning, modality of didactic learning, interaction with educators, facilitating and hindering factors during online classes, comparison of e-learning with traditional teaching, the features preferred during online classes |
Ibrahim et al. [17] (2020) | Saudi Arabia | CSS | Medicine | 340 | Fully online course | Zoom, Blackboard | P/A | 21-item data collection sheets from the E-Learning Acceptance Measure and items to assess student perception (7-point Likert scale) | Preferred learning management system, tutor quality, perceived usefulness, facilitating conditions, perceptions regarding the benefits, enablers, and barriers to e-learning |
Kivlehan et al. [18] (2020) | USA | CSS | Medicine | 30 | Fully online course | Zoom | P | Questionnaire developed by the authors | Perceived benefits and barriers to e-learning, satisfaction with education during the COVID-19 pandemic |
Kolcu et al. [19] (2020) | Turkey | CSS | Medicine | 941 | Fully online course | Moodle | A | 21-item questionnaire from the Learning Management System Acceptance Scale (5-point Likert scale) | Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence |
Kumar et al. [20] (2020) | India | CSS | Medicine | 600 | Fully online course | Zoom | P | 10-item questionnaire developed by the authors (5-point Likert scale) | Flexibility of learning, achievement of pedagogical objectives, attractivity of the online course |
Puljak et al. [21] (2020) | Croatia | CSS | Medicine and nursing | 2,520 | Fully online course | NR | P/M | 73-item questionnaire developed by the authors (5-point Likert scale) | Personal experience with e-learning, motivation and attendance, possibility to participate in e-learning, continuation of education during the pandemic |
Singh et al. [22] (2021) | India | CSS | Medicine and nursing | Medical student: 1,541 | Fully online course | NR | A | 33-item survey, developed by the authors (dichotomous and multiple-choice questions) | Feasibility of online classes, health issues arising from online classes, methods of online teaching, student preferences and attitudes towards e-learning |
Nursing student: 684 | |||||||||
Singhi et al. [23] (2020) | USA | CSS | Medicine | 30 | Fully online course | WebEx | P | 19-item survey designed by the authors | Ease of technical access to the online platform, level of comfort with participation, knowledge acquisition, wellness, and COVID-19-specific coverage |
Tuma et al. [24] (2020) | Iraq | CSS | Medicine | 636 | Fully online course | Google Classroom, Free Conference Call | P | 10-item survey, designed by the authors | The feasibility of educational technology platforms for distance education and the education’s perceived quality |
Wang et al. [25] (2020) | China | CSS | Medicine | 99,559 | Fully online course | NR | P | 20-item questionnaire developed by the authors based in part on the technology acceptance model (5-point Likert scale) | Prior online learning experiences, perceptions of ongoing online education |
Study | Study design |
Sampling |
Type of data |
Validity of the evaluation instrument |
Data analysis |
Outcome |
Total score | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Institution studied | Response rate score | Internal structure | content | Relationships to other variables | Appropriateness of analysis | Complexity of analysis | Satisfaction, attitudes, perceptions | Knowledge, skills | Behaviors | Patient/health care outcome | ||||
Abbasi et al. [11] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
Anwar et al. [12] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
Buthelezi et al. [13] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
Chandrasinghe et al. [14] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
Dost et al. [15] | 1 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
Gupta et al. [16] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Ibrahim et al. [17] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
Kivlehan et al. [18] | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.5 |
Kolcu et al. [19] | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.5 |
Kumar et al. [20] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 9.5 |
Puljak et al. [21] | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.5 |
Singh et al. [22] | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.5 |
Singhi et al. [23] | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.5 |
Tuma et al. [24] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Wang et al. [25] | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.5 |
PICOS items | Inclusion and exclusion criteria |
---|---|
Population | Medical and dental students, nursing and health science students. |
Intervention | Studies that examined fully online learning as a teaching method (synchronous and/or asynchronous). Studies that investigated hybrid teaching methods were excluded. |
Comparison | Studies with or without a comparison group. |
Outcome | Studies to be eligible for inclusion should include student perceptions, and/or acceptance, and/or motivation, and/or engagement in e-learning during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. |
Study design | We included cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials. Qualitative studies, commentary articles, letters to the editor, editorials, conference abstracts, book chapters, and reviews were excluded. |
Study (year) | Country | Study design | Discipline | No. of participants | Instructional design | Used platform | Results | Measurement instruments | Main domains and/or items of questionnaire |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abbasi et al. [11] (2020) | Pakistan | CSS | Medicine and dentistry | Medical students: 204 | Fully online course | NR | P | 23-item questionnaire, developed by the authors (5-point Likert scale) | Future learning preferences, comparison of e-learning with traditional teaching, quality and impact of e-learning, student-teacher interactions, online teaching security |
Dental students: 178 | |||||||||
Anwar et al. [12] (2021) | Pakistan | CSS | Medicine and dentistry | 283 | Fully online course | NR | P | 20-item questionnaire, developed by the authors based on the original version of Watkins and his colleagues (5-point Likert scale) | Technology access, online skills and relationships, students’ views and students’ perceptions of possible advantages of e-learning |
Buthelezi et al. [13] (2021) | South Africa | CSS | Nursing | 60 | Fully online course | Moodle | P | Questionnaire with 23 items, designed by the authors (4-point Likert scale) | Computer access, frequency of use, prior exposure to e-learning platforms, anxiety and attitude towards technology, perceived computer self-efficacy |
Chandrasinghe et al. [14] (2020) | Sri Lanka | CSS | Medicine | 1,047 | Fully online course | Zoom, Facebook | A | Questionnaire designed by the authors | Relevance and importance of the topic, students’ discussions and clinical sense, discussion and knowledge and understanding of the topic |
Dost et al. [15] (2020) | UK | CSS | Medicine | 2,721 | Fully online course | NR | P/E | 20-item questionnaire, developed by the authors based in part on the Ready Education Environment Measure (5-point Likert scale) | The use and experience of online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived benefits and barriers of online teaching |
Gupta et al. [16] (2021) | India | CSS | Medicine | 248 | Fully online course | NR | P | 22-item online survey developed by the authors (5-point Likert scale) | Time spent on online and offline learning, modality of didactic learning, interaction with educators, facilitating and hindering factors during online classes, comparison of e-learning with traditional teaching, the features preferred during online classes |
Ibrahim et al. [17] (2020) | Saudi Arabia | CSS | Medicine | 340 | Fully online course | Zoom, Blackboard | P/A | 21-item data collection sheets from the E-Learning Acceptance Measure and items to assess student perception (7-point Likert scale) | Preferred learning management system, tutor quality, perceived usefulness, facilitating conditions, perceptions regarding the benefits, enablers, and barriers to e-learning |
Kivlehan et al. [18] (2020) | USA | CSS | Medicine | 30 | Fully online course | Zoom | P | Questionnaire developed by the authors | Perceived benefits and barriers to e-learning, satisfaction with education during the COVID-19 pandemic |
Kolcu et al. [19] (2020) | Turkey | CSS | Medicine | 941 | Fully online course | Moodle | A | 21-item questionnaire from the Learning Management System Acceptance Scale (5-point Likert scale) | Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence |
Kumar et al. [20] (2020) | India | CSS | Medicine | 600 | Fully online course | Zoom | P | 10-item questionnaire developed by the authors (5-point Likert scale) | Flexibility of learning, achievement of pedagogical objectives, attractivity of the online course |
Puljak et al. [21] (2020) | Croatia | CSS | Medicine and nursing | 2,520 | Fully online course | NR | P/M | 73-item questionnaire developed by the authors (5-point Likert scale) | Personal experience with e-learning, motivation and attendance, possibility to participate in e-learning, continuation of education during the pandemic |
Singh et al. [22] (2021) | India | CSS | Medicine and nursing | Medical student: 1,541 | Fully online course | NR | A | 33-item survey, developed by the authors (dichotomous and multiple-choice questions) | Feasibility of online classes, health issues arising from online classes, methods of online teaching, student preferences and attitudes towards e-learning |
Nursing student: 684 | |||||||||
Singhi et al. [23] (2020) | USA | CSS | Medicine | 30 | Fully online course | WebEx | P | 19-item survey designed by the authors | Ease of technical access to the online platform, level of comfort with participation, knowledge acquisition, wellness, and COVID-19-specific coverage |
Tuma et al. [24] (2020) | Iraq | CSS | Medicine | 636 | Fully online course | Google Classroom, Free Conference Call | P | 10-item survey, designed by the authors | The feasibility of educational technology platforms for distance education and the education’s perceived quality |
Wang et al. [25] (2020) | China | CSS | Medicine | 99,559 | Fully online course | NR | P | 20-item questionnaire developed by the authors based in part on the technology acceptance model (5-point Likert scale) | Prior online learning experiences, perceptions of ongoing online education |
Study | Study design | Sampling |
Type of data | Validity of the evaluation instrument |
Data analysis |
Outcome |
Total score | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Institution studied | Response rate score | Internal structure | content | Relationships to other variables | Appropriateness of analysis | Complexity of analysis | Satisfaction, attitudes, perceptions | Knowledge, skills | Behaviors | Patient/health care outcome | ||||
Abbasi et al. [11] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
Anwar et al. [12] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
Buthelezi et al. [13] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
Chandrasinghe et al. [14] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
Dost et al. [15] | 1 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
Gupta et al. [16] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Ibrahim et al. [17] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
Kivlehan et al. [18] | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.5 |
Kolcu et al. [19] | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.5 |
Kumar et al. [20] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 9.5 |
Puljak et al. [21] | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.5 |
Singh et al. [22] | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10.5 |
Singhi et al. [23] | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.5 |
Tuma et al. [24] | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Wang et al. [25] | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.5 |
PICOS, population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design.
CSS, cross-sectional study; NR, not reported; P, perception; A, acceptance; E, engagement; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; M, motivation.