Questions of Well-Being and Inclusion in Online Undergraduate Medical Education During COVID-19: A 2-Phased Focused Scoping Review. (12th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: MacLeod, Anna; Cameron, Paula; Luong, Victoria; Parker, Robin; Li, Vinson; Munroe-Lynds, Cora-Lynn
• Is Part Of: Academic medicine. Volume 98:Number 4(2023)
• Page Start: 521
• Page End: 530
• Publication Date: 2022-12-12
• Subjects: Medical education -- Periodicals; Medical policy -- Periodicals; Medical personnel -- Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.711
• DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005119
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-2446

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Undergraduate medical education (UGME) was transformed by the rapid move to online curriculum delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most research on online UGME has focused on measuring its effectiveness. However, medical educators also require evidence regarding its implications with respect to well-being and inclusion. Method: To explore online learning transition, particularly the effect on well-being and inclusion, this 2-phased focused scoping review employed a revised Joanna Briggs Institute approach: (1) developing review questions and objectives; (2) determining eligibility criteria; (3) developing the search strategy; (4) extracting, analyzing, and discussing findings; (5) drawing conclusions; and (6) discussing implications for practice and further research. Results: The review ultimately included 217 articles, of which 107 (49%) explored student and staff well-being during online UGME, 64 (30%) focused on inclusion in this context, and 46 (21%) examined both well-being and inclusion. Additionally, 137 of included articles (63%) were research/evaluation, 48 (22%) were descriptive, and 32 (15%) were opinion. Of the 137 research/evaluation studies, 115 (84%) were quantitative, 10 (7%) were qualitative, 8 (6%) were mixed methods, and 4 (3%) were Reviews. Among these research/evaluation studies, the most commonly used data collection method was surveys (n = 120), followed by academic tests (n = 14). Other methods included interviews (n = 6), focus groups (n = 4), written reflections (n = 3), user data (n = 1), and blood tests (n = 1). Conclusions: Important questions remain regarding the safety and inclusiveness of online learning spaces and approaches, particularly for members of historically excluded groups and learners in low-resource settings. More rigorous, theoretically informed research in online medical education is required to better understand the social implications of online medical education, including more in-depth, qualitative investigations about well-being and inclusion and more strategies for ensuring online spaces are safe, inclusive, and supportive.