A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review of: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? BEME Guide No. 52

Abstract

Background: Ingrained assumptions about clinical placements (clerkships) for health professions students pursuing primary basic qualifications might undermine best educational use of mobile devices.

Question: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements?

Methods: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) effectiveness-review of “justification” complemented by “clarification” and “description” research searched: MEDLINE, Educational Resource Information Center, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, Scopus (1988–2016). Reviewer-pairs screened titles/abstracts. One pair coded, extracted, and synthesized evidence, working within the pragmatism paradigm.

Summary of results: From screening 2279 abstracts, 49 articles met inclusion-criteria, counting four systematic reviews for context. The 45 articles of at least Kirkpatrick K2 primary research mostly contributed K3 (39/45, 86.7%), mixed methods (21/45, 46.7%), and S3-strength (just over one-half) evidence. Mobile devices particularly supported student: assessment; communication; clinical decision-making; logbook/notetaking; and accessing information (in about two-thirds). Informal and hidden curricula included: concerns about: disapproval; confidentiality and privacy; security;—distraction by social connectivity and busy clinical settings; and mixed messages about policy.

Discussion and conclusion: This idiosyncratic evidence-base of modest robustness suggested that mobile devices provide potentially powerful educational support on clinical placement, particularly with student transitions, metalearning, and care contribution. Explicit policy must tackle informal and hidden curricula though, addressing concerns about transgressions.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gillian Maudsley

Gillian Maudsley, MBChB, FRCPath, MPH(dist), FFPH, MEd(dist), MD, MA(dist) Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, SFHEA, Clinical Senior Lecturer in Public Health Medicine, Department of Public Health & Policy.

David Taylor

David Taylor, BSc(Hons), MEd, MA(dist) Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, PhD, EdD, PFHEA, FAcadMEd, FRSB, FAMEE, Reader in Medical Education, School of Medicine and Professor of Medical Education & Physiology, College of Medicine.

Omnia Allam

Omnia Allam, MBBS, MSc, MSc(dist), PhD, Senior Lecturer in Medical Education, School of Medicine.

Jayne Garner

Jayne Garner, BSc(Hons), MSc, PhD, Lecturer and Evaluation Officer, School of Medicine.

Tudor Calinici

Tudor Calinici, BASc, MSc, PhD, Lecturer in Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine.

Ken Linkman

Ken Linkman, Liaison Librarian, Harold Cohen Library.