Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Dec 21, 2018
Date Accepted: Jul 10, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Effectiveness of Digital Education on Communication Skills Among Medical Students: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration

Kyaw BM, Posadzki P, Paddock S, Car J, Campbell J, Tudor Car L

Effectiveness of Digital Education on Communication Skills Among Medical Students: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(8):e12967

DOI: 10.2196/12967

PMID: 31456579

PMCID: 6764329

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Effectiveness of Digital Education on Communication Skills Among Medical Students: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration

  • Bhone Myint Kyaw; 
  • Pawel Posadzki; 
  • Sophie Paddock; 
  • Josip Car; 
  • James Campbell; 
  • Lorainne Tudor Car

Background:

Effective communication skills are essential in diagnosis and treatment processes and in building the doctor-patient relationship.

Objective:

Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in medical students for communication skills development. Broadly, we assessed whether digital education could improve the quality of future doctors’ communication skills.

Methods:

We performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases and two trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs (cRCTs) published between January 1990 and September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the citations, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias. We also assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessment (GRADE).

Results:

We included 12 studies with 2101 medical students, of which 10 were RCTs and two were cRCTs. The digital education included online modules, virtual patient simulations, and video-assisted oral feedback. The control groups included didactic lectures, oral feedback, standard curriculum, role play, and no intervention as well as less interactive forms of digital education. The overall risk of bias was high, and the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. For skills outcome, meta-analysis of three studies comparing digital education to traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills scores between the groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]=–0.19; 95% CI –0.9 to 0.52; I2=86%, N=3 studies [304 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). Similarly, a meta-analysis of four studies comparing the effectiveness of blended digital education (ie, online or offline digital education plus traditional learning) and traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills between the groups (SMD=0.15; 95% CI –0.26 to 0.56; I2=86%; N=4 studies [762 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The additional meta-analysis of four studies comparing more interactive and less interactive forms of digital education also showed little or no difference in postintervention skills scores between the two groups (SMD=0.12; 95% CI: –0.09 to 0.33; I2=40%; N=4 studies [893 students]; small effect size; moderate-quality evidence). For knowledge outcome, two studies comparing the effectiveness of blended online digital education and traditional learning reported no difference in postintervention knowledge scores between the groups (SMD=0.18; 95% CI: –0.2 to 0.55; I2=61%; N=2 studies [292 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The findings on attitudes, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes were limited or mixed. None of the included studies reported adverse outcomes or economic evaluation of the interventions.

Conclusions:

We found low-quality evidence showing that digital education is as effective as traditional learning in medical students’ communication skills training. Blended digital education seems to be at least as effective as and potentially more effective than traditional learning for communication skills and knowledge. We also found no difference in postintervention skills between more and less interactive forms of digital education. There is a need for further research to evaluate the effectiveness of other forms of digital education such as virtual reality, serious gaming, and mobile learning on medical students’ attitude, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes as well as the adverse effects and cost-effectiveness of digital education.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Kyaw BM, Posadzki P, Paddock S, Car J, Campbell J, Tudor Car L

Effectiveness of Digital Education on Communication Skills Among Medical Students: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(8):e12967

DOI: 10.2196/12967

PMID: 31456579

PMCID: 6764329

Per the author's request the PDF is not available.