Evaluates digital skill improvement in students from underrepresented backgrounds, suggesting effective microlearning methods.
Background Public health is undergoing a digital transformation, with increasing reliance on data-driven decision-making that requires proficiency in computational tools. However, traditional curricula often emphasize theoretical knowledge over applied technical skills, contributing to gaps in workforce readiness. This study evaluated a pilot remote, asynchronous microlearning course designed to expand access to digital skills–specifically R and Google Colab–among students from historically underrepresented backgrounds within the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) network. Methods A three-week course, “ Introduction to Cloud Data Analytics for Health Services Research ,” was delivered via a Learning Management System. Students ( N = 19) completed three modules: (1) R and RStudio fundamentals, (2) cloud-based analysis of data from the Health Information for National Trends Survey 7 using Google Colab, and (3) scientific abstract writing. Evaluation included a pre- and post-program five-item objective knowledge assessment, retrospective self-rated competencies (1–5 scale), and a post-program satisfaction survey. Results Mean objective knowledge scores increased significantly from 3.58 to 4.37 ( p = .039). Participants reported statistically significant improvements in eight of nine self-rated competencies ( p < .05), with the largest gains in installing R/RStudio and navigating the interface. Satisfaction was high across domains, particularly for “value for academic development” ( M = 4.5/5.0). Conclusion Brief, asynchronous microlearning experiences can effectively build foundational computational skills and expand access to training for students in low-resourced settings. While technical competencies can be developed within short, flexible formats, more complex skills such as scientific communication may require additional instructional time and support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Strekalova et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: