↓ Skip to main content

Factors influencing the implementation, adoption, use, sustainability and scalability of mLearning for medical and nursing education: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors influencing the implementation, adoption, use, sustainability and scalability of mLearning for medical and nursing education: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0354-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charmaine Krishnasamy, Sik Yin Ong, Yvonne Yock, Issac Lim, Rebecca Rees, Josip Car

Abstract

mLearning is increasingly presented as an attractive novel educational strategy for medical and nursing education. Yet, evidence base for its effectiveness or factors which influence use, success, implementation or adoption are not clear. We aim to synthesise findings from qualitative studies to provide insight into the factors (barriers and facilitators) influencing adoption, implementation and use of mobile devices for learning in medical and nursing education. The review also aims to identify factors or actions which are considered to optimise the experience and satisfaction of educators and learners in using mobile technologies for medical and nursing education and to identify strategies for improving mLearning interventions for medical and nursing education. A systematic search will be conducted across a range of databases for studies describing or evaluating the experiences, barriers, facilitators and factors pertaining to the use of mLearning for medical and nursing education. The framework synthesis approach will be used to organise and bring different components of the results together. The confidence in the qualitative review findings will be assessed using the CERQual approach. This study will contribute to the planning and design of effective mLearning and the development of mLearning guidelines for medical and nursing education. PROSPERO CRD42016035411.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 28 21%
Unknown 38 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Computer Science 14 11%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Engineering 7 5%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 44 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,577,751
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,790
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,595
of 316,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#44
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.