Hybrid teaching, which integrates traditional in-person learning based on students’ perspectives where online learning offers a flexible approach to education, combines the benefits of technology with face-to-face interactions. Moreover, teaching and learning in a hybrid way met several challenges for both teachers and learners, including technological problems, time management, communication difficulties, and assessment complexities. This systematic review investigates six main research questions: (1) What pedagogical frameworks are used in hybrid teaching and learning? (2) How can we enhance students’ engagement in hybrid teaching and learning? (3) What is the impact of technological integration on hybrid learning scenarios, both for students and teachers? (4) How do training and support measures influence the willingness and ability of university teachers to implement hybrid teaching formats? (5) How do formative assessment and feedback methods in hybrid learning environments enable teachers to effectively monitor student progress and provide tailored support? (6) How does the implementation of hybrid learning affect student learning outcomes? This study identifies the following key themes: technological integration, pedagogical innovation, faculty support, student engagement, assessment practices, and learning outcomes. Our contribution of this literature review is related to teaching and learning by showing teachers the most appropriate way to avoid the challenges encountered when teaching in a hybrid way. These include strong technology integration, innovative pedagogical strategies, strong academic development and support, active student engagement, effective assessment practices, and positive learning outcomes.

Background: Improving the transparency of information about the quality of health care providers is one way to improve health care quality. It is assumed that Internet information steers patients toward better-performing health care providers and will motivate providers to improve quality. However, the effect of public reporting on hospital quality is still small. One of the reasons is that users find it difficult to understand the formats in which information is presented. Objective: We analyzed the presentation of risk-adjusted mortality rate (RAMR) for coronary angiography in the 10 most commonly used German public report cards to analyze the impact of information presentation features on their comprehensibility. We wanted to determine which information presentation features were utilized, were preferred by users, led to better comprehension, and had similar effects to those reported in evidence-based recommendations described in the literature. Methods: The study consisted of 5 steps: (1) identification of best-practice evidence about the presentation of information on hospital report cards; (2) selection of a single risk-adjusted quality indicator; (3) selection of a sample of designs adopted by German public report cards; (4) identification of the information presentation elements used in public reporting initiatives in Germany; and (5) an online panel completed an online questionnaire that was conducted to determine if respondents were able to identify the hospital with the lowest RAMR and if respondents’ hospital choices were associated with particular information design elements. Results: Evidence-based recommendations were made relating to the following information presentation features relevant to report cards: evaluative table with symbols, tables without symbols, bar charts, bar charts without symbols, bar charts with symbols, symbols, evaluative word labels, highlighting, order of providers, high values to indicate good performance, explicit statements of whether high or low values indicate good performance, and incomplete data (“N/A” as a value). When investigating the RAMR in a sample of 10 hospitals’ report cards, 7 of these information presentation features were identified. Of these, 5 information presentation features improved comprehensibility in a manner reported previously in literature. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically analyze the most commonly used public reporting card designs used in Germany. Best-practice evidence identified in international literature was in agreement with 5 findings about German report card designs: (1) avoid tables without symbols, (2) include bar charts with symbols, (3) state explicitly whether high or low values indicate good performance or provide a “good quality” range, (4) avoid incomplete data (N/A given as a value), and (5) rank hospitals by performance. However, these findings are preliminary and should be subject of further evaluation. The implementation of 4 of these recommendations should not present insurmountable obstacles. However, ranking hospitals by performance may present substantial difficulties. [J Med Internet Res 2015;17(3):e68]