Page 95 - International Perspectives on Effective Teaching and Learning in Digital Education

Digital Standard for the Design of Inclusive and Effective Online Courses in Higher Education

Records identi ed from: Records removed before
Identi cation • PubMed (n = 126), • Duplicate records removed

screening:
Databases (n = 329):
(n = 72)
• Medline and CINAHL (n = 43),

• ScienceDirect (n = 160)
Records screened Records excluded

(n = 257) (n = 178)

Reports sought for retrieval Reports not retrieved

(n = 79) (n = 8)
Screening

Reports assessed for eligibility
• Irrelevant focus (e.g.
(n = 71) Reports excluded:
focused on other rather
than higher education) (n = 33)
• Lack of theoretical

models/frameworks (n = 29)
Studies included in review
Included (n = 9)

Figure.1 Literature Search Strategy Included in the Integrative Review

During the screening phase, 178 records were excluded because they did
not fulfil the predefined inclusion criteria. The remaining 79 articles were
used for the full-text search. However, 8 reports could not be retrieved and
were excluded from further evaluation.
A total of 71 full-text articles were screened for eligibility. Of these, 33 stud-
ies were excluded due to an irrelevant focus (e.g. studies dealing with edu-
cational levels other than higher education), while 9 studies were excluded
due to the lack of a theoretical model or framework. Following this rigorous
selection process, 9 studies met all eligibility criteria and were included in the
final analysis.

Quality Appraisal
To assess the methodological quality of the included studies, we applied the
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, n.d.).

95