Forfattere: Luan H, Wang M, Sokol RL, Wu S, Victor BG, Perron BE

År: 2020

Kilde: Medical Education Online, 25(1):1782594

Sammendrag:

Aim: WeChat is the most popular social media platform in mainland China, with over 1 billion active users. Although social media is widely used in professional healthcare education in western countries, research on WeChat-based education in healthcare in mainland China is disparate and not systematic. The current study seeks to address this gap. 

Method: A scoping review was conducted to systematically describe studies of WeChat use in professional healthcare education. A comprehensive search involving three international databases in English and Chinese literature was conducted in April 2019. Articles were retained in this study if they were original studies that used WeChat as a tool to facilitate healthcare education in mainland China. 

Results: 25 studies met the inclusion criteria and the majority of studies were either experimental or quasi-experimental. WeChat was used in both university settings and hospital settings. Hybrid education–which integrates WeChat education and face-to-face education–was more common in university settings, whereas hospitals used a combination of hybrid and WeChat-only strategies. Significant heterogeneity was observed regarding the type of accounts and methods for delivering content and facilitating online conversations. A majority of studies found positive outcomes with WeChat education. 

Conclusions: This scoping review addressed a large gap in knowledge about the usage of WeChat in professional healthcare education. Of the existing studies identified, we observed considerable promise for future practice. We provide additional suggestions for conducting future research involving patients and other helping professionals in healthcare education to expand the usage of WeChat. 

DOI / Lenke: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2020.1782594

Metodisk kvalitetsvurdering:

Denne systematiske oversikten er tilsynelatende utarbeidet på en god måte og forfatterne har vært forholdsvis tydelig på metoden de har brukt for å utarbeide oversikten. Forfatterne har forholdsvis tydelige inklusjons- og eksklusjonskriterier. De søker kun i to engelske databaser som øker sannsynligheten for at de ikke har identifisert relevante studier. På grunn av at arbeid med tidsskriftartikler i Kina er annerledes enn i Vesten kan ikke forskerne garantere for at de kinesiske artiklene som inkluderes er fagfellevurdert. Det gjennomføres heller ingen metodologisk vurdering av de inkluderte studiene, noe som kunne vært naturlig som en kvalitetssjekk, særlig på de inkluderte kinesiske studiene.