Authors

Moule, P., Ward, R. and Lockyer, L.

Year of publication

2011

Journal details

Journal of Research in Nursing. 16 (1), 77–90

Purpose of the study

Research problem/question

Literature search

Ethical issues

Sample

Design/data collection

Key results/findings

Conclusion/recommendations

Strengths

Limitations

Any other comments?

Authors

Moule, P., Ward, R. and Lockyer, L.

Year of publication

2011

Journal details

Journal of Research in Nursing. 16 (1), 77–90

Purpose of the study

No previous studies have scoped the adoption of e-learning in nursing and health sciences within higher education settings, yet this is a government policy strategy.

Research problem/question

Aimed to scope e-learning implementation and explore the issues impacting on adoption.

Literature search

Recent and key UK policy background supporting the adoption of e-learning in health and social care learning.

Definition of e-learning.

Education commissioners and health providers also driving the agenda.

Still perceived to be limited uptake.

No international literature.

Ethical issues

Received ethical approval from an HEI ethics committee.

Informed consent related to interviews, implied consent for the survey through return of the questionnaires.

Sample

Phase 1 – survey accessed through Higher Education Academy database. 25 recruited from 93 approached (28% response).

Phase 2 – recruited through phase 1 responses. 9 HEI case studies, 35 staff interviewed in different roles.

Design/data collection

Mixed methods approach.

National survey.

Adapted tool from pre-validated survey tool – 62 questions.

Analysed using SPSS statistical package, generating descriptive statistics.

Case study sites.

Interviews with staff.

Thematically analysed using a recognised framework.

Key results/findings

Presented using tables and text.

Phase 1

Two factors emerged as critical to e-learning adoption- committed local champion and technological changes and development were needed.

Drivers to change were to improve the quality of teaching and learning and improving access to learning.

96% used virtual learning environments, mainly used to access information.

76% used portals, 96% email, 84% discussion boards. A small percentage were using mobile technologies.

Funding for development was ad hoc, training was inconsistent and student training was mainly developed through central mechanisms.

Phase 2

Various enablers to use identified and supported by verbatim quotes – institutional strategies, demand, staff champions, technical support.

Barriers to use included: lack of IT skills, resource issues, reluctance to use.

Overall e-learning remained at the periphery of educational delivery in the health care field.

Engagement was often at instructivist level.

Use of Web 2.0 interactive technologies still in development.

Mobile technologies were least used.

Resources affected development.

Reluctance to engage by students and staff – supported by previous research.

Lack of computer use in clinical areas impacting.

Desire to expand use such as portfolio use.

Conclusion/recommendations

E-learning predominantly providing access to information rather than maximising its potential for interactive engagement.

More systematic approach to funding for development and training should be considered.

Also an opportunity to exploit and spread small pockets of development across to maximise resource use and benefits.

Strengths

Used a pre-validated survey tool (though rather lengthy).

Did capture survey responses from universities that majored in research and teaching and learning.

Did include both a survey and access more qualitative data.

Limitations

Low response rate to initial survey – may have attracted those HEIs with most engagement.

Database used to access the sample may not have been complete.

Semi-structured interviews concentrated on broad questions.

No data collected on individual profiles/characteristics that might affect views on e-learning, e.g. previous experience.

Any other comments?

Other aspects of the study not presented in this paper. Technology use changes rapidly.

Authors

Wen Poh, L., He, H.-G., Chan, W., Lee, C., Lahiri, M., Mak, A. and Cheung, P.

Year of publication

2017

Journal details

Clinical Nursing Research. 29 (3), 373–393.

Purpose of the study

Research problem/question

Literature search

Ethical issues

Sample

Design/data collection

Key results/findings

Conclusion/recommendations

Strengths

Limitations

Any other comments?

Authors

Wen Poh, L., He, H.-G., Chan, W., Lee, C., Lahiri, M., Mak, A. and Cheung, P.

Year of publication

2017

Journal details

Clinical Nursing Research, 29 (3), 373-393.

Purpose of the study

Aimed to explore the experiences and support needs of adults living with Rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Research problem/question

‘What are the experiences of patients living with RA?’

‘What type of support needs do RA patients require or desire?’

These are clear and relate to the aim of the study.

Literature search

Sets out the scope of the issue.

Presents the reported problems for patients with RA.

Includes evidence on self-management impact.

Concludes by stating that all of the evidence is based on Western cultures and this Singapore based study is unique. All evidence is within the previous 13 years.

No policy documents referenced.

Ethical issues

Ethical approval was sought from a review board. Refers to the use of recognised tools to support ethical practice – research information sheet, written consent. This modelled good practice.

Sample

Recruited from a hospital-based clinic – purposive sample. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are reported. Used recognised classification criteria in defining RA. A purposive sample is appropriate for the study design.

Design/data collection

Qualitative approach reported, though a questionnaire was also included. Semi-structured interviews following a guide covered a number of key areas. This was reported as being used flexibly so not all participants will have had the same questions. The length of time taken was also very variable – 16 to 67 minutes. There isn’t any report on the actual impact of this on the data – i.e. how many interviews were very brief.

The approach to the interview data analysis is referenced to a recognised framework. The interviews were transcribed, thematically analysed by the data collector and independently by two other researchers. There is also reference to the need for rigor in qualitative studies and evidence of how this was achieved in the study. This is a strength of the reported research. However, there is no report of having them having sought validation of the interpretations from the participants themselves.

Personal medical record data was also included.

Participants also competed a socio economic questionnaire. It isn’t clear if this was a pre-validated or recognised tool. It isn’t made clear how this was analysed. A voucher was given to each participant after the interview.

The overall approach is appropriate to the study design.

Key results/findings

There were 16 participants in total.

The questionnaire and medical record data is presented in tables. These are clearly laid out though there isn’t any supporting discussing of the data. In addition, there is reference to the use of recognised scales, e.g. Visual Analogue Scale – though it isn’t clear how this was collected and when.

The paper presented the qualitative interview data using themes and with verbatim supporting quotes. There were five themes presented in total and the quotes used support the suggest theme content.

 The experience of pain reported had a detrimental effect on lifestyle. Fatigue was reported, but seen as less of an issue. Psychological challenges were apparent. Social relationships were affected. Pharmacological support was important but side effects of medications were a concern. Other coping mechanisms were also used, with social support being important.

Overall patients were happy with the level of support from health care professionals, though would like more information. Financial needs were not being met. 

Conclusion/recommendations

Provided information on the experiences and support needs of an element of the Singapore RA population. Recommendations were drawn related to education and information provision for patients. The need for mental health assessment was also highlighted. Financial support was also considered and policy changes were recommended.

Strengths

Design was appropriate for the research questions.

Used recognised classification criteria in defining RA. 

Unique findings related to financial hardships.

Gained a Singapore-based perspective.

Limitations

One centre study which limits transferability. Limitations in recruitment will have impacted on the diversity of the population participating. Only English and Mandarin speaking ethic groups were included.

Not clear if the questionnaire was pre-validated.

Limited interpretation of the questionnaire and health date. Qualitative analysis not verified by the participants.

Any other comments?