@Article{信息:doi 10.2196 / / jmir。4807，作者=“刘钱鹏，张维军，范胡，荣李，颜颖雪，卫荣”，标题=“混合学习在卫生专业中的有效性:系统评价与meta分析”，期刊=“J医学互联网研究”，年=“2016”，月=“1”，日=“04”，卷=“18”，数=“1”，页数=“e2”，关键词=“混合学习;有效性;知识;卫生职业;背景:混合学习，即传统的面对面学习和异步或同步电子学习的结合，已经迅速发展并广泛应用于教育领域。对混合学习有效性的关注导致了越来越多的关于这一主题的研究。然而，目前还没有一个定量综合评估混合学习对卫生专业知识获取的有效性。目的:与无干预和非混合学习相比，我们旨在评估混合学习对卫生专业学习者的有效性。我们还旨在探索可以解释不同研究设计、参与者、国家社会经济状况、干预持续时间、随机化和每个问题的质量评分的学习效果差异的因素。 Methods: We conducted a search of citations in Medline, CINAHL, Science Direct, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ERIC through September 2014. Studies in any language that compared blended learning with no intervention or nonblended learning among health professional learners and assessed knowledge acquisition were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and abstracted information including characteristics of learners and intervention (study design, exercises, interactivity, peer discussion, and outcome assessment). Results: We identified 56 eligible articles. Heterogeneity across studies was large (I2 ≥93.3) in all analyses. For studies comparing knowledge gained from blended learning versus no intervention, the pooled effect size was 1.40 (95{\%} CI 1.04-1.77; P<.001; n=20 interventions) with no significant publication bias, and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. For studies comparing blended learning with nonblended learning (pure e-learning or pure traditional face-to-face learning), the pooled effect size was 0.81 (95{\%} CI 0.57-1.05; P<.001; n=56 interventions), and exclusion of any single study did not change the overall result. Although significant publication bias was found, the trim and fill method showed that the effect size changed to 0.26 (95{\%} CI -0.01 to 0.54) after adjustment. In the subgroup analyses, pre-posttest study design, presence of exercises, and objective outcome assessment yielded larger effect sizes. Conclusions: Blended learning appears to have a consistent positive effect in comparison with no intervention, and to be more effective than or at least as effective as nonblended instruction for knowledge acquisition in health professions. Due to the large heterogeneity, the conclusion should be treated with caution. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/jmir.4807", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2016/1/e2/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4807", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26729058" }