Real-life Evaluation of an Interactive Versus Noninteractive e-Learning Module on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease for Medical Licentiate Students in Zambia: Web-Based, Mixed Methods Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: e-Learning for health professionals in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is still in its infancy, but with the advent of COVID-19, a significant expansion of digital learning has occurred. Asynchronous e-learning can be grouped into interactive (user-influenceable content) and noninteractive (static material) e-learning. Studies conducted in high-income countries suggest that interactive e-learning is more effective than noninteractive e-learning in increasing learner satisfaction and knowledge; however, there is a gap in our understanding of whether this also holds true in LMICs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to validate the hypothesis above in a resource-constrained and real-life setting to understand e-learning quality and delivery by comparing interactive and noninteractive e-learning user satisfaction, usability, and knowledge gain in a new medical university in Zambia. METHODS: We conducted a web-based, mixed methods randomized controlled trial at the Levy Mwanawasa Medical University (LMMU) in Lusaka, Zambia, between April and July 2021. We recruited medical licentiate students (second, third, and fourth study years) via email. Participants were randomized to undergo asynchronous e-learning with an interactive or noninteractive module for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and informally blinded to their group allocation. The interactive module included interactive interfaces, quizzes, and a virtual patient, whereas the noninteractive module consisted of PowerPoint slides. Both modules covered the same content scope. The primary outcome was learner satisfaction. The secondary outcomes were usability, short- and long-term knowledge gain, and barriers to e-learning. The mixed methods study followed an explanatory sequential design in which rating conferences delivered further insights into quantitative findings, which were evaluated through web-based questionnaires. RESULTS: Initially, 94 participants were enrolled in the study, of whom 41 (44%; 18 intervention participants and 23 control participants) remained in the study and were analyzed. There were no significant differences in satisfaction (intervention: median 33.5, first quartile 31.3, second quartile 35; control: median 33, first quartile 30, second quartile 37.5; P=.66), usability, or knowledge gain between the intervention and control groups. Challenges in accessing both e-learning modules led to many dropouts. Qualitative data suggested that the content of the interactive module was more challenging to access because of technical difficulties and individual factors (eg, limited experience with interactive e-learning). CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe an increase in user satisfaction with interactive e-learning. However, this finding may not be generalizable to other low-resource settings because the post hoc power was low, and the e-learning system at LMMU has not yet reached its full potential. Consequently, technical and individual barriers to accessing e-learning may have affected the results, mainly because the interactive module was considered more difficult to access and use. Nevertheless, qualitative data showed high motivation and interest in e-learning. Future studies should minimize technical barriers to e-learning to further evaluate interactive e-learning in LMICs.

Performance of alternative COPD case-finding tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

RATIONALE: Guidelines recommend pre-/post-bronchodilator spirometry for diagnosing COPD, but resource constraints limit the availability of spirometry in primary care in low- and middle-income countries. Although spirometry is the diagnostic gold standard, we shall assess alternative tools for settings without spirometry. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted, utilising Cochrane, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science (search cut-off was May 01, 2020). Published studies comparing the accuracy of diagnostic tools for COPD with post-bronchodilator spirometry were considered. Studies without sensitivity/specificity data, without a separate validation sample and outside of primary care were excluded. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) were assessed. RESULTS: Of 7578 studies, 24 were included (14 635 participants). Hand devices yielded a larger AUC than questionnaires. The meta-analysis included 17 studies and the overall AUC of micro-spirometers (0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.89) was larger when compared to the COPD population screener (COPD-PS) questionnaire (0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.85) and the COPD diagnostic questionnaire (CDQ) (0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.78). However, only the difference between micro-spirometers and the CDQ was significant. CONCLUSIONS: The CDQ and the COPD-PS questionnaire were approximately equally accurate tools. Questionnaires ensured testing of symptomatic patients, but micro-spirometers were more accurate. A combination could increase accuracy but was not evaluated in the meta-analysis.