Cargando…

A partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in South Africa, Sweden, and Uganda

BACKGROUND: Novel research training approaches are needed in global health, particularly in sub-Saharan African universities, to support strengthening of health systems and services. Blended learning (BL), combining face-to-face teaching with computer-based technologies, is also an accessible and fl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumpu, Minna, Atkins, Salla, Zwarenstein, Merrick, Nkonki, Lungiswa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Co-Action Publishing 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5056980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27725076
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.28058
_version_ 1782458974815125504
author Kumpu, Minna
Atkins, Salla
Zwarenstein, Merrick
Nkonki, Lungiswa
author_facet Kumpu, Minna
Atkins, Salla
Zwarenstein, Merrick
Nkonki, Lungiswa
author_sort Kumpu, Minna
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Novel research training approaches are needed in global health, particularly in sub-Saharan African universities, to support strengthening of health systems and services. Blended learning (BL), combining face-to-face teaching with computer-based technologies, is also an accessible and flexible education method for teaching global health and related topics. When organised as inter-institutional collaboration, BL also has potential for sharing teaching resources. However, there is insufficient data on the costs of BL in higher education. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the total provider costs of BL in teaching health research methods in a three-university collaboration. DESIGN: A retrospective evaluation was performed on a BL course on randomised controlled trials, which was led by Stellenbosch University (SU) in South Africa and joined by Swedish and Ugandan universities. For all three universities, the costs of the BL course were evaluated using activity-based costing with an ingredients approach. For SU, the costs of the same course delivered with a classroom learning (CL) approach were also estimated. The learning outcomes of both approaches were explored using course grades as an intermediate outcome measure. RESULTS: In this contextually bound pilot evaluation, BL had substantially higher costs than the traditional CL approach in South Africa, even when average per-site or per-student costs were considered. Staff costs were the major cost driver in both approaches, but total staff costs were three times higher for the BL course at SU. This implies that inter-institutional BL can be more time consuming, for example, due to use of new technologies. Explorative findings indicated that there was little difference in students’ learning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The total provider costs of the inter-institutional BL course were higher than the CL course at SU. Long-term economic evaluations of BL with societal perspective are warranted before conclusions on full costs and consequences of BL in teaching global health topics can be made.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5056980
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Co-Action Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50569802016-10-19 A partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in South Africa, Sweden, and Uganda Kumpu, Minna Atkins, Salla Zwarenstein, Merrick Nkonki, Lungiswa Glob Health Action Special Issue: Capacity building in global health research: is blended learning the answer? BACKGROUND: Novel research training approaches are needed in global health, particularly in sub-Saharan African universities, to support strengthening of health systems and services. Blended learning (BL), combining face-to-face teaching with computer-based technologies, is also an accessible and flexible education method for teaching global health and related topics. When organised as inter-institutional collaboration, BL also has potential for sharing teaching resources. However, there is insufficient data on the costs of BL in higher education. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the total provider costs of BL in teaching health research methods in a three-university collaboration. DESIGN: A retrospective evaluation was performed on a BL course on randomised controlled trials, which was led by Stellenbosch University (SU) in South Africa and joined by Swedish and Ugandan universities. For all three universities, the costs of the BL course were evaluated using activity-based costing with an ingredients approach. For SU, the costs of the same course delivered with a classroom learning (CL) approach were also estimated. The learning outcomes of both approaches were explored using course grades as an intermediate outcome measure. RESULTS: In this contextually bound pilot evaluation, BL had substantially higher costs than the traditional CL approach in South Africa, even when average per-site or per-student costs were considered. Staff costs were the major cost driver in both approaches, but total staff costs were three times higher for the BL course at SU. This implies that inter-institutional BL can be more time consuming, for example, due to use of new technologies. Explorative findings indicated that there was little difference in students’ learning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The total provider costs of the inter-institutional BL course were higher than the CL course at SU. Long-term economic evaluations of BL with societal perspective are warranted before conclusions on full costs and consequences of BL in teaching global health topics can be made. Co-Action Publishing 2016-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5056980/ /pubmed/27725076 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.28058 Text en © 2016 Minna Kumpu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Special Issue: Capacity building in global health research: is blended learning the answer?
Kumpu, Minna
Atkins, Salla
Zwarenstein, Merrick
Nkonki, Lungiswa
A partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in South Africa, Sweden, and Uganda
title A partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in South Africa, Sweden, and Uganda
title_full A partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in South Africa, Sweden, and Uganda
title_fullStr A partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in South Africa, Sweden, and Uganda
title_full_unstemmed A partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in South Africa, Sweden, and Uganda
title_short A partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in South Africa, Sweden, and Uganda
title_sort partial economic evaluation of blended learning in teaching health research methods: a three-university collaboration in south africa, sweden, and uganda
topic Special Issue: Capacity building in global health research: is blended learning the answer?
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5056980/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27725076
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.28058
work_keys_str_mv AT kumpuminna apartialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda
AT atkinssalla apartialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda
AT zwarensteinmerrick apartialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda
AT nkonkilungiswa apartialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda
AT apartialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda
AT kumpuminna partialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda
AT atkinssalla partialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda
AT zwarensteinmerrick partialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda
AT nkonkilungiswa partialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda
AT partialeconomicevaluationofblendedlearninginteachinghealthresearchmethodsathreeuniversitycollaborationinsouthafricaswedenanduganda