Back

Barriers and Facilitators in Implementing Online Educational Interventions for Physicians: Systematic Review of Reviews

Tolegenova, A.; Kanderzhanova, A.; Foster, F.; Colet, P.; Stolyarova, V.; Sarria-Santamera, A.

2024-11-18 medical education
10.1101/2024.11.18.24317472 medRxiv
Show abstract

The implementation of online educational interventions for physicians presents both barriers and facilitators that shape the integration of digital learning into medical education frameworks. This systematic review of reviews aims to synthesize evidence on factors influencing the successful implementation of online educational interventions for physicians. We conducted searches across databases including, PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL spanning the years 2018 to 2023. Inclusion criteria comprised systematic reviews focusing on the implementation of e-learning. Data synthesis followed meta-ethnography principles, with categorization guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Twenty-one relevant reviews were analyzed, highlighting factors within the CFIR domains: Innovation, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Individuals, and Implementation Process. Facilitators included evidence-based practices, adaptability, leadership engagement, and resource availability, while barriers encompassed limited funding, regulatory hurdles, technological constraints, and resistance to change. The results emphasize how crucial it is for healthcare institutions, policymakers, educators, and technology providers to work together in order to effectively incorporate online learning into medical education. In conclusion, the study highlights the importance of tailored implementation strategies and policy recommendations, utilizing evidence-based practices and addressing various factors, to enhance online medical educations effectiveness and ensure its integration into healthcare systems for improved patient outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.