JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Tobacco smoking, one of the leading cause of preventable death and disease, is associated with seven million deaths every year. This is estimated to rise to more than eight million deaths per year by 2030, with 80% occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Digital education, teaching and learning using digital technologies, has the potential to increase educational opportunities, supplement teaching activities, and decrease distance barriers in health professional education.

Objective:

The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine whether digital education can be used as an alternative to traditional/usual education to train health professionals to deliver smoking cessation therapy.

Methods:

We searched seven electronic databases and two trial registers for randomized controlled trials published between January 1990 and August 2017. We used gold standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies.

Results:

Eleven studies (n=2684) were included in the review. All studies found that digital education was at least as effective as traditional/usual learning. There was some suggestion that blended education results in greater improvements in skill (SMD=0.58, 95% CI: 0.08, 1.08), and satisfaction (SMD=0.62, 95% CI: 0.12, 1.12) compared to digital education or usual learning alone. There was also some evidence for improved attitude (SMD=0.45, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.72) following digital education compared to usual learning. Only one study reported patient outcomes and the set-up cost of blended education but did not compare outcomes between groups. There were insufficient data to investigate what components of the digital education interventions were associated with the greatest improvements in learning outcomes.

Conclusions:

The evidence suggests that digital education is at least as effective as usual learning in improving health professionals’ knowledge and skill for delivering smoking cessation therapy. However, limitations in the evidence base mean that these conclusions should be interpreted with some caution.