↓ Skip to main content

Training community healthcare workers on the use of information and communication technologies: a randomised controlled trial of traditional versus blended learning in Malawi, Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
324 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
Training community healthcare workers on the use of information and communication technologies: a randomised controlled trial of traditional versus blended learning in Malawi, Africa
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1175-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikolaos Mastellos, Tammy Tran, Kanika Dharmayat, Elizabeth Cecil, Hsin-Yi Lee, Cybele C. Peng Wong, Winnie Mkandawire, Emmanuel Ngalande, Joseph Tsung-Shu Wu, Victoria Hardy, Baxter Griphin Chirambo, John Martin O’Donoghue

Abstract

Despite the increasing uptake of information and communication technologies (ICT) within healthcare services across developing countries, community healthcare workers (CHWs) have limited knowledge to fully utilise computerised clinical systems and mobile apps. The 'Introduction to Information and Communication Technology and eHealth' course was developed with the aim to provide CHWs in Malawi, Africa, with basic knowledge and computer skills to use digital solutions in healthcare delivery. The course was delivered using a traditional and a blended learning approach. Two questionnaires were developed and tested for face validity and reliability in a pilot course with 20 CHWs. Those were designed to measure CHWs' knowledge of and attitudes towards the use of ICT, before and after each course, as well as their satisfaction with each learning approach. Following validation, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the two learning approaches. A total of 40 CHWs were recruited, stratified by position, gender and computer experience, and allocated to the traditional or blended learning group using block randomisation. Participants completed the baseline and follow-up questionnaires before and after each course to assess the impact of each learning approach on their knowledge, attitudes, and satisfaction. Per-item, pre-post and between-group, mean differences for each approach were calculated using paired and unpaired t-tests, respectively. Per-item, between-group, satisfaction scores were compared using unpaired t-tests. Scores across all scales improved after attending the traditional and blended learning courses. Self-rated ICT knowledge was significantly improved in both groups with significant differences between groups in seven domains. However, actual ICT knowledge scores were similar across groups. There were no significant differences between groups in attitudinal gains. Satisfaction with the course was generally high in both groups. However, participants in the blended learning group found it more difficult to follow the content of the course. This study shows that there is no difference between blended and traditional learning in the acquisition of actual ICT knowledge among community healthcare workers in developing countries. Given the human resource constraints in remote resource-poor areas, the blended learning approach may present an advantageous alternative to traditional learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 324 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 324 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 13%
Researcher 37 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 59 18%
Unknown 117 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 44 14%
Social Sciences 31 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 4%
Computer Science 10 3%
Other 52 16%
Unknown 129 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,790,729
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#677
of 4,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,731
of 345,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#23
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 345,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.