Blended Learning in Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review of Pedagogical Approaches, Digital Innovations, Learning Outcomes, and Implementation Challenges

Authors

  • Mira Istiana Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Eveline Siregar Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Tuti Iriani Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Imam Fitri Rahmadi Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jp.v13i3.20181

Keywords:

Blended Learning, health professions education, learning outcomes, pedagogical approaches

Abstract

This study aims to examine the implementation patterns, technology integration, learning outcomes, student engagement, and sustainability factors of blended learning (BL) in health professions education (HPE) between 2020 and 2024 across diverse pedagogical and educational contexts. Despite the increasing adoption of BL in HPE, the existing literature lacks a comprehensive, theory-informed synthesis of implementation patterns, technology integration, the relationship between student engagement and learning outcomes, and sustainability factors across disciplines and educational settings. This study employed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The review was conducted using the Scopus database and included studies published between January 2020 and December 2024. A total of 41 peer-reviewed empirical studies were selected from an initial pool of 65 records through rigorous title and abstract screening, followed by full-text eligibility assessment. Data were synthesised narratively, and the findings were organised thematically according to five research questions using an integrated theoretical framework encompassing constructivism, cognitive load theory, multimedia learning theory, and self-regulated learning theory. The findings revealed that 58.5% of the included studies implemented general BL approaches, whereas 41.5% adopted established pedagogical frameworks. Technology integration primarily involved multimedia resources (53.7%), digital assessment platforms (43.9%), and video conferencing tools (43.9%). Overall, BL demonstrated high effectiveness, with 86% of the reported learning outcome measures indicating positive results. Structured active engagement exhibited the strongest positive association with learning outcomes (r ≈ 0.55–0.75). The main challenges included substantial resource requirements and difficulties in student self-regulation, whereas instructional design support emerged as the most important facilitating factor. These findings suggest that although BL is highly effective in HPE, its long-term sustainability depends on transitioning from ad hoc implementation to institutionally supported, theory-driven instructional design. Accordingly, educators and higher education institutions should prioritise intentional pedagogical design and sustained institutional support to ensure the effective and sustainable implementation of blended learning in health professions education.

References

Chen, B., Wang, Y., Xiao, L., Xu, C., Shen, Y., Qin, Q., Li, C., Chen, F., Leng, Y., Yang, T., & Sun, Z. (2021). Effects of mobile learning for nursing students in clinical education: A meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 97, 104706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104706

Dedeilia, A., Sotiropoulos, M. G., Hanrahan, J. G., Janga, D., Dedeilias, P., & Sideris, M. (2020). Medical and surgical education challenges and innovations in the COVID-19 era: A systematic review. In In Vivo (Vol. 34, pp. 1603–1611). International Institute of Anticancer Research. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11950

Frenk, J., Chen, L., Bhutta, Z. A., Cohen, J., Crisp, N., Evans, T., Fineberg, H., Garcia, P., Ke, Y., Kelley, P., Kistnasamy, B., Meleis, A., Naylor, D., Pablos-Mendez, A., Reddy, S., Scrimshaw, S., Sepulveda, J., Serwadda, D., & Zurayk, H. (2010). Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. The Lancet, 376(9756), 1923–1958. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61854-5

Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. In Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269558

Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: A meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z

Holmboe, E. S., Kogan, J. R., Iobst, W., Bernabeo, E., & Goldenberg, M. (2021). Realizing the promise of competency-based medical education. Medical Teacher, 43(9), 999–1001.

Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Liu, Q., Peng, W., Zhang, F., Hu, R., Li, Y., & Yan, W. (2016). The effectiveness of blended learning in health professions: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4807

Mayer, R. E. (2021). Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (3rd ed., pp. 57–72). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/9781108894333.008

McCutcheon, K., O’Halloran, P., & Lohan, M. (2018). Online learning versus blended learning of clinical supervisee skills with pre-registration nursing students: A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 82, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.02.005

McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010). A critical review of simulation‐based medical education research: 2003–2009. Medical Education, 44(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x

Miller, G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine, 65(9), S63-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045

Norcini, J., Anderson, M. B., Bollela, V., Burch, V., Costa, M. J., Duvivier, R., Gallagher, P., Hays, R., Kent, A., Perrott, V., & Roberts, T. (2018). Criteria for good assessment: 2018 consensus statement and recommendations of the Ottawa 2016 Consensus Conference. Medical Teacher, 40(8), 803–808.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

Park, S., Kim, H., Lee, Y., & Choi, M. (2022). Survey of nursing students’ experiences and perceptions with blended learning in pediatric nursing. Nurse Education Today, 115.

Santos, S., Liberato, S., Velardi, M., Romano, M., Biasibetti, A., & Dimonte, V. (2022). Students’ engagement in and perceptions of blended anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 15(1), 689–701. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2167

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3

ten Cate, O. (2017). Competency-based postgraduate medical education: Past, present and future. GMS Journal for Medical Education, 34(5).

Vallee, A., Blacher, J., Cariou, A., & Sorbets, E. (2020). Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. In Journal of Medical Internet Research (Vol. 22, Number 8). JMIR Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.2196/16504

Wang, D., Zhou, J., Wu, Q., Sheng, G., Li, X., Lu, H., & Tian, J. (2022). Enhancement of Medical Students’ Performance and Motivation in Pathophysiology Courses: Shifting From Traditional Instruction to Blended Learning. Frontiers in Public Health, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.813577

Wilcha, R. J. (2020). Effectiveness of virtual medical teaching during the COVID-19 crisis: Systematic review. In JMIR Medical Education (Vol. 6, Number 2). JMIR Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.2196/20963

Woltering, V., Herrler, A., Spitzer, K., & Spreckelsen, C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(5), 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9154-6

Yardley, S., & Dornan, T. (2012). Kirkpatrick’s levels and education ‘evidence.’ Medical Education, 46(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04076.x

Downloads

Published

2026-07-12

How to Cite

Istiana, M., Siregar, E., Iriani, T., & Rahmadi, I. F. (2026). Blended Learning in Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review of Pedagogical Approaches, Digital Innovations, Learning Outcomes, and Implementation Challenges. Jurnal Paedagogy, 13(3), 1307–1316. https://doi.org/10.33394/jp.v13i3.20181

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026): July

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities tacitly or explicitly of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with Jurnal Paedagogy agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

Jurnal Paedagogy use a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.