Open Access

Digital Education in the Therapeutic Healthcare Professions: Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Speech and Language Therapy: a Scoping Review / Digitale Ausbildung in den therapeutischen Gesundheitsberufen Ergotherapie, Physiotherapie und Logopädie: Ein Scoping Review

Lisa Giesselbach

Lisa Giesselbach

Technische Universität Dortmund, Fakultät Rehabilitationswissenschaften, Fachgebiet Sprache und KommunikationDortmund, Germany
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Giesselbach, Lisa
, 
Aisha Meriel Boettcher

Aisha Meriel Boettcher

Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Boettcher, Aisha Meriel
 and 
Sascha Sommer

Sascha Sommer

Hochschule für Gesundheit Bochum, Department für Angewandte GesundheitswissenschaftenBochum, Germany
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Sommer, Sascha
  
Dec 28, 2023
Digital Education in the Therapeutic Healthcare Professions: Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Speech and Language Therapy: a Scoping Review / Digitale Ausbildung in den therapeutischen Gesundheitsberufen Ergotherapie, Physiotherapie und Logopädie: Ein Scoping Review's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Download Cover
Published Online: Dec 28, 2023
Page range: 105 - 116
Received: Aug 20, 2022
Accepted: Oct 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhp-2023-0008
Keywords
© 2023 Lisa Giesselbach et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1:

Flow chart of article selection process.
Flow chart of article selection process.

Figure 2:

Results: Categories and sub-categories.
Results: Categories and sub-categories.

Studies included in synthesis_

No. Author (year) Students, semester, N Profession Technology Country Taught Subject Study Design
1 Davies et al. (2012) Master, N = 16 PT VC Canada Clinical reasoning Qualitative design: focus groups
2 Divanoglou et al. (2018) Undergraduate N ≈ 75 PT VC Australia, UK Bachelor curriculum Qualitative design: focus groups & evaluation
3 Doyle & Jacobs (2013) Post professional graduate, N= 8 OT Materials USA Learning styles Online survey
4 Doyle, Jacobs & Ryan (2016) Doctoral, N = 48 faculty, N = 9 OT Multi-modal USA e-mentoring Retrospective mixed-methods design
5 Furness & Kaltner (2015) Undergraduate, N = 22 OT VC Australia Practical training and reflection Mixed-methods design
6 Kelley et al. (2020) Undergraduate, N = 21 SLT Materials USA Teaching vocabulary, shared storybook reading Comparison study
7 Ng et al. (2014) Third-year undergraduate, N = 8 SLT VC Hong Kong Case studies Pilot study, comparison study face-to-face vs. online
8 Plummer et al. (2021) Undergraduate, N = 72 PT Materials Video USA Psychomotor skills Cohort study
9 Power et al. (2020) First-year undergraduate N = 30 OT Materials Australia Aphasia communication partner training Pilot RCT
10 Pulga et al. (2014) Fourth-year students, N =60 SLT Materials Brazil Therapeutic procedure phonological disorders Comparison study
11 Ramos et al. (2015) Undergraduate, N = 30 IPE (SLT & Dentist) Materials Brazil Interdisciplinary practice Pre- and postcourse evaluation
12 Schaber & Shanedling (2012) N = 86 OT Materials USA OT theory Mixed-methods Questionnaires, focus groups
13 Stickley & Gibbs (2021) PT PhD, N = 37HIM Master’s, N = 7 IPE (PT & HIM) Materials USA IPC Two-group pre/post survey
14 Titterington & Bates (2018) First-year, N = 27 SLT Materials UK Phonetic transcription Mixed-methods observational design
15 Veneri & Mongillo (2021) First-year, N = 63 PT Materials USA EBP Pre- and postassignments
16 Worobey et al. (2022) Clinicians and students, N = 41 IPE (PT & OT) Multi-modal USA Wheelchair skills Cohort study with pre- vs. posttraining comparison
Languages:
English, German
Publication timeframe:
1 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Medicine, Clinical Medicine, Clinical Medicine, other
Journal RSS Feed