Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278109. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278109

Factors influencing the E-learning system usage during the COVID-19 pandemic in Vietnam

Thang Xuân Do 1,*, Huong Thi Lan Tran 1, Thuy Thu Le 1
Editor: Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye2
PMCID: PMC9714881  PMID: 36454966

Abstract

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has brought forward an unprecedented situation, which has forced the educational institutes worldwide to use a propriety “online only” model for teaching and learning. Teachers have been compelled to deliver lectures online using some form of an online delivery platform. In this dilemma situation with the closure of the educational institutes, one of the very basic necessities is to ensure quality features of e-learning systems that are being used for the purpose of education delivery, particularly from the students’ perspective. The objective of this study was to identify factors affecting pharmacy students’ satisfaction in Vietnam during the COVID 19 pandemic. A cross-sectional survey of a consecutive sample of 1612 valid responses from students who have been in distance learning at Hanoi University of Pharmacy has been conducted. An integrated model with three main dimensions had been developed: learner’s characteristics; instructor’s characteristics; system, and technology. Data were collected in the field on both online and offline platforms using the questionnaire of 39 items to investigate the critical factors affecting learners’ satisfaction in e-learning. The reliability of the questionnaire was measured using Cronbach’s alpha on this data. Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and multiple regression analysis were employed for data analysis. Out of 2491 questionnaires distributed, 1612 questionnaires were completed (respond rate 64.7%). The results revealed that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, system and technical dimension and instructors’ characteristics are the critical factors affecting learners’ perceived satisfaction. The perceived usefulness of the students was the most important factor affecting overall satisfaction (beta coefficient = 0.610). Multiple regression analysis yielded the four main factors explaining 59.9% of total satisfaction. The findings revealed how to improve learners’ satisfaction and further strengthen their e-learning implementation. The interventional solutions on students’ characteristics, instructors’ characteristics and system & technical dimension should be considered and implemented to improve the quality of e-learning and students’ satisfaction at Hanoi University of Pharmacy.

Introduction

The outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic has led to enormous impacts on the daily lives, behavior, and awareness of Vietnamese people. The COVID-19 pandemic caused by a new strain of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has affected many countries and territories worldwide and is officially recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global pandemic [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted teaching in many institutions, especially in pharmacy or medical schools. In many countries, including Vietnam, concentrated learning activities have had a period of pause to ensure the safety of students and lecturers [2].

To minimize disruption in the learning process, schools had to find a different approach in training students. In that context, online learning has become the core method of teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 23, the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam issued document No. 988/BGDĐT-GDĐH to guide higher education institutions to implement distance learning activities during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to ensure educational effectiveness and quality. Currently, most schools have successfully implemented online teaching activities through online learning channels, integrated software such as Google Meet (Google, Mountain View, CA, USA), Microsoft Team (Microsoft, Redmond, DC, USA), Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, CA, USA)… [3]. Although online learning is the first choice in the context of lengthy and complicated translation, in fact, this process has arisen many invades and causes many difficulties for both teachers and learners due to limitations in technology infrastructure, learning conditions, or the ability to understand and follow the lesson.

Online learning, like any teaching method, has advantages and disadvantages for both students and teachers. Besides the epidemiological benefits of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, other benefits mentioned include increased convenience, accessibility to resources regardless of location and time [46]. Otherwise, e-learning initiatives also require considerable investments in technology such as hardware costs, software licenses, learning material development, equipment maintenance, and training also has many limitations, including problems of poor internet connection quality and learners’ computer skills [7, 8]. Not being very familiar with such teaching methodologies, instructors and students struggle to consolidate these with their plan of continuing medical education while maintaining the quality of it. Lack of expertise in operating the electronic resources and the concomitant problem of limited access to the internet, computers, and other facilities due to social and economic setbacks is an obstacle for online learning and teaching [9]. During the Covid 19 pandemic, many studies have been conducted to evaluate the education of health students and medical specialties, however, there has not been to research evaluating the education activities of Vietnamese pharmacy students [10, 11]. Hence, this research was conducted to obtain the satisfaction of pharmacy students regarding the transition to online learning.

Materials and methods

Participants

Pharmacy students from the 2nd year to 5th year who joined online training at HUP during COVID 19 were recruited to participate in the study. Our research war carried out when students studied the theory and practiced directly at HUP after the online learning period due to the Covid-19 epidemic. The survey was conducted on both online and offline platforms at Hanoi University of Pharmacy in Vietnam, using a convenience sample of students. The questionnaires were administered by two different data collection methods: online questionnaire and offline questionnaire. For each class, we only did offline or online form. The offline survey was applied for students from the 2nd year to 4th year who participated in the practical session or the theoretical session. Reseacher collected the questionnaire form in the field, so we could control their response. Student presenting at the practical session or the theoretical session were recruited to the offline. The online form was only applied to final year students who finished the theory or practice at school. When participating in the online survey, the students accessed the questionaire through the group on the online platform of their class. Students accessing and participating in answering the online questionaires would be aggregated to analysis. The personal information in the online questionaire including name, year of birth, class, phone number and email was used to check for duplicates. Data were gathered from 1277 offline answer sheets (response rate 72.1%) and 335 online answer sheets (response rate 44.6%). Whilst the final dataset is based on a convenience sample, the demographic statistics are broadly consistent with those of the population as described earlier in the section.

Procedure and materials

Two types of questionnaires were designed for purpose of collecting suitable data from the two platforms (online survey and offline survey). The designed questionnaires were formed by the literature review which identified potential critical success factors (CSF’s) and their categorization. The questionnaire included 43 items, of which 4 items were about the characteristics of the survey participants, 39 left items, which were designed on a 5-point Likert scale (1: totally disagree; 2: somewhat disagree; 3: Neither agree or disagree; 4: somewhat agree; 5: totally agree), focused on three main factors: system & technical dimension, students’ characteristics, and instructors’ characteristics. The questionnaire was initially developed in the English language, then a translation of the questionnaire to Vietnamese was completed. The translation was an iterative process with principles of translation/back translation. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved. To ensure that the questionnaires were fit for the purpose, the pilot study was conducted. The pilot study used a Vietnamese language version of the questionnaire to collect data from a sample of twenty students who are currently studying at Hanoi University of Pharmacy, following which further fine adjustments were made to produce the final version.

The survey online form was designed by the Google Forms application, then the form was distributed to the students’ email address which were provided by the university. All items in the survey were required to be completed. However, it was optional for respondents to provide personal information. So it allowed respondents to answer the questionnaire comfortably and to minimise bias. All the respondents’ responses stored in Google Forms were exported as Master Excels (csv file) to import to SPSS 22. Before performing the analysis methods, the variables were renamed and the data were checked for the validity of each case, no cases were excluded by the respondents provided constant value for all items. The final dataset had 335 valid cases.

The survey offline was administered to 1722 students at lecture halls and laboratories based on their class schedules and practice schedules. The answer sheets were collected immediately by the research team after learners completed. After that, the researcher checked for the validity of the questionnaire (do not fill in the wrong ideas, do not choose 2 or more answers for a question), if not, it will be returned to the student to complete. The final dataset had 1277 valid cases.

Data analysis

The information including year of birth, gender, and school year was collected to analysis and cannot track participants. The personal information including name, class, phone number and email which can track participants would be coded into ID and only one person could access the original data and this person would not participate in data analysis. The cleaned and coded data was imported to IBM SPSS for the purpose of analysis. The data is cleaned for missing values and the questionnaires with incomplete responses were removed from the analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the demographic factors to understand the basic nature of the sample considered for the study. The percentage frequencies, mean scores, and factor loadings on the questionnaire items were performed. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha to measure the internal consistency of the scale, with preferred values higher than 0.7.

Once descriptive statistics had been generated, suitability of the dataset for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was established using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. The selection criteria are KMO index above the acceptable minimum of 0.50, and Bartlett’s test had a level of significance above the required level of 0.05%.

Factor analysis was employed to define factors and related items. A Principal Component Analysis was undertaken to find out the factors which explain the most variance in the data used. Only those factors which are having Eigenvalue above 1 are extracted. Next, orthogonal varimax rotation was used to generate a component matrix, which shows the loading of items onto the identified factors for both data sets. Items with factor loadings greater than 0.50 were considered “significant”.

Ethical issues

The study protocol was approved by the ethical committee of Hanoi University of Pharmacy, Hanoi, Vietnam (referene number 20-08/PCT-HĐĐĐ). Informed consents were obtained from all participants verbally with the witness of the class monitor. The information about participants’ consent and confidentiallity were incorporated in the online questionnaire in the introduction to the purpose of the study. If consent, the participants could access to the link and answer the questionnaire.

Results

Demographics of the participants

The valid questionnaires were 1612 and comprised 335 online platforms and 1277 offline platforms with an overall response rate of 64.7%. As can be seen, the offline response rate was much higher than the online response rate (72% vs 46.6%). Table 1 exhibits the demographic data of the participants in terms of gender, Internet-connected devices and forms of internet connection. It shows that more than half of the participants are females (72.4%). The majority of students use phones and laptops to access (69.5% and 81.2%, respectively) with the main form of connection being wi-fi (91.8%).

Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the participants.

Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 409 27.6
Female 1072 72.4
Internet-connected devices
Mobile phone 1029 69.5
Laptop 1203 81.2
Desktop 145 9.8
Tablet 66 4.5
Forms of internet connection
Wi-Fi 1360 91.8
3G/4G 505 34.1
Places of connection
Home 1455 98.2
Internet shop 54 3.6
Academic Year
2 534 33.1
3 335 20.8
4 454 28.2
5 289 17.9
E-learning was an appropriate solution in Covid 19 pandemic, mean (SD) 4.39 0.674

Cronbach alpha and descriptive statistics

The Alpha Cronbach Coefficient, the reliability test, was applied to the data in order to assess the validity and the reliability of the instruments employed. Table 2 shows Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension. Cronbach’s alpha of three factors were higher than 0.8 (ranging from 0.890 to 0.952).

Table 2. The Alpha Cronbach Coefficient values for each factor.
No. Factor No. of Statements Alpha Cronbach Coefficient
1 System & technical dimension 10 0.890
2 Students’ characteristics 13 0.948
3 Instructor’s characteristics 16 0.952

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for the factor analysis was 0.974. The value of Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was less than 0.01 so that factor analysis may be useful for the data.

Rotated factor loadings for current services items

Factor analysis extracted four factors with the cumulative explained variance of 59.90%. Factor loadings after a varimax rotation are shown in Table 3. In cases where the factor loading was above 0.5 for two factors and the difference between two-factor loading is less than 0.3, that observation variable would be removed. Accordingly, the three items were excluded and the 36 items on current services were regrouped into four new factors: Perceived ease of use, Perceived usefulness, Instructor’s characteristics, System & technical dimension.

Table 3. Final factor loading.

Factors Item Component
Instructor characteristics Instructor’s style of teaching using e-learning technologies 0.761
Instructor’s enthusiasm while teaching using e-learning tools 0.733
Students were invited to ask questions/receive answers 0.721
The instructor’s style of presentation holds my interest 0.720
The instructor is friendly towards individual students 0.715
The instructor is active in teaching me the course subjects via e-learning 0.714
The instructor explains how to use the e-learning components 0.714
The instructors impart easy-to-understand knowledge suitable for e-learning 0.704
Students felt welcome in seeking advice/help 0.704
The instructors have a method of assessing students’ participation and knowledge acquisition 0.701
The instructors answer questions from students in a timely manner when teaching online 0.671
Instructor’s ability to use the e-learning system effectively 0.652
Perceived Usefulness My attention to the class tasks during e-learning session was greater in comparison to the traditional face-to-face class meetings. 0.848
The activities during the e-learning sessions motivated me to learn the class content more than the ones in the traditional face-to-face class meetings. 0.831
The use of e-learning improved my learning in the class. 0.791
Using the e-learning system will improve my learning performance 0.729
The use of e-learning motivated me to seek help from tutors, classmates, and the instructor. 0.721
Using the e-learning system will make it easier to learn course content 0.692
I am more comfortable responding to questions by email than orally 0.685
I find the e-learning system useful in my learning 0.626
My technical skills (email/internet apps) have increased since attending online classes 0.610
I prefer my online courses as they are very structured with set due dates similar to face-to-face courses 0.580
Perceived Ease of Use I could complete my learning activities using the web-based system even if there is no one around to show me how to do it 0.781
I find the e-learning system easy to use 0.747
I could complete my learning activities using the web-based system even if I had never used a system like it before 0.732
I could complete my learning activities using the web-based system If I had only the system manuals for reference 0.724
It is easy for me to become skillful at using the e-learning 0.723
I have no difficulty when operating on e-learning devices 0.649
System & technical dimension Learning materials are easy to download (Download) 0.681
The e-learning system offers multimedia (audio, video, and text) types of course content 0.646
E-learning software is compatible with electronic devices (phones, computers, etc.) 0.644
The e-learning system enables interactive communication between instructor and students 0.609
E-learning system that allows students to record lectures 0.599
The course materials were placed online in a timely manner 0.587
Teaching content is useful to students 0.579
Overall, the e-learning system was easy to use 0.553

Regression results

Multiple regression was employed to test the models. The findings showed in Table 4 discloses that R square = 0.599, and the p-value for the F test statistic is less than 0.0001, providing strong evidence against the null hypothesis.

Table 4. Coefficients.

Factor Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Sig. VIF
Constant 3.935 - <0.0001 1.000
Instructor’s characteristics (X1) 0.195 0.221 <0.000 1.000
Perceived usefulness (X2) 0.537 0.610 <0.0001 1.000
Perceived ease of use (X3) 0.308 0.350 <0.0001 1.000
System & technical dimension (X4) 0.212 0.241 <0.0001 1.000
Sig.F <0.0001
Adjusted R square 0.599

Four analyzed factors exhibited significant relationships with perceived e-learner satisfaction. As listed in Table 4, among the factors influencing student satisfaction, perceived usefulness (β = 0.610, Sig <0.005) and perceived ease of use (β = 0.350, Sig <0.005) showed the greatest effects, following by system & technical dimension (β = 0.241, Sig <0.005). Instructor’s characteristic is evaluated at the lowest position (β = 0.221, Sig <0.005). Through the value of adjusted R square, the explanatory level of the model was 59.9%. It showed that 59.9% of learner satisfaction can be explained by the four main factors. Based on the results, an equation is established as follow: Y = 3.935+0.221*X1+0.610*X2+0.350*X3+0.241*X4.

Discussion

To our knowledge, the current study is among the first to address pharmacy student distance online learning and associated factors in Vietnam during Covid 19 pandemic. Some previous studies indicated the distance education of pharmacy student during the COVID 19 pandemic [12, 13]. The Covid 19 pandemic affected the pharmacy education so that adjustments are needed to accommodate the education in the new sitution. Online training is considered a suitale form for low and middle-income countries like Vietnam [14]. The form of e-learning training has shown its effectiveness in pharmacy training [15].

The results relate to other precedent CSF studies. Abdulla (2018) identified the following four categories: students’ characteristics, teachers’ characteristics, technology, and design and content [16]. Selim (2007) identified seven factors, with three focusing on student characteristics, and the other four being instructors’ characteristics, technology, support, and e-learning system [17]. There are several potential reasons for this, including differences in respondent’s background, curricula, culture, facilities, or the items used in the instrument. In addition, where there are some similarities in categories, there remain differences in the relative ranking of CSFs.

Perceived usefulness

The research findings indicated perceived usefulness as one of the key factors that must be considered and planned for before the implementation of e-learning. Participants rates their motivation and concentration with low scores (3.43 and 3.55, respectively). This is because online learning requires learners with high self-discipline. The learning environment outside the lecture hall is easy for learners to be distracted. Besides this, studying for a long time continuously makes students face many health problems such as headaches, tinnitus. These are also the obstacles learners face when switching from traditional to online learning.

The positive association between perceived usefulness and user satisfaction is consistent with previous studies. Perceived usefulness is also found to be a significant factor affect e-learning usage intention which confirms the studies carried out by Motaghian (2013) [18], Chen and Tseng (2012) [19], Chow (2012) [20], Li (2012) [21] and Sumak (2011) [22]. It can be seen that the perceived usefulness of an e-learning system is an important external driver for user satisfaction with the system. Hence, the higher the perceived usefulness of an e-learning system, the more satisfaction learners had.

Perceived ease of use

It was found that the second factor that affects e-learners’ satisfaction is perceived ease of use. Students indicated that the systems are easy to use and manipulate. Perceived ease of use helps to increase student motivation and attitude towards online learning. These foster student-faculty interaction, encourage learners to develop study skills and broaden the scope of the learning experience. The ease of use of the E-Learning system helps individuals to achieve better learning efficiency, thus, the level of learning satisfaction will be higher.

Chen (2012) [19] and Ong (2004) et al [23] concluded that e-learning acceptance is influence directly by perceived usefulness and indirectly by perceived ease of use. User-friendly design is an important factor affecting the success of e-learning implementation. Ease of use contributes to increased student motivation and attitude towards online learning, which encourages learners to develop study skills and promotes student-faculty interaction.

System & technical dimension

In the literature, Selim et al [17] identified system & technical dimension as a significant factor influencing the implementation of e-learning. This research finding shows that system & technical dimension represents an important factor during the implementation of e-Learning.

These variables “Learning materials are easy to download”, "Microsoft-Team online learning software compatible with electronic devices", "Teaching content useful to students" were rated at the same level with an average score around 4.1. The result reveals the importance of learning material and content. Consistent with other studies, the topic of the online activity was the important factors in deciding upon participation [11]. Therefore, the design of learning materials and content is an important factor when implementing online training.

System functionality and system interactivity directly influence e-learner satisfaction. However, factors related to the system’s functionality including lecture recording, materials posted online promptly were rated at low score. The online learning process is easily interrupted due to the quality of the transmission or problems on the device. Therefore, it is necessary to allow recording of lectures during the learning process to help learners review more conveniently.

The system function is also one of the key factors affecting student satisfaction when using the system. Learners find that the system is equipped with the right functionality that increases perceived ease of use and perceived effectiveness, and thereby increases their satisfaction. Besides, the system functional specification also suggests specific characteristics that are the target for e-learning system developers should aim for. For example, in this study, learners found that the system needed to add recording functionality and allow better remote access to course content. In Selim’s research, learners have shown that a system function that helps learners and teachers interact effectively will increase learner satisfaction [17]. Therefore, besides building the right system interface, the system’s feature characteristics including enabling efficient interactions and providing access to course content and recording also play an important role in influencing student satisfaction.

Instructor’s dimensions

The impacts of teachers’ characteristics on e-learning implementation were largely influenced by the teachers’ attitudes, control of technology in the learning environment, and teaching style. These variables "The instructors answer questions from students in a timely manner when teaching online” and “Instructor’s enthusiasm while teaching using e-learning tools “are rating at the highest score nearly 4.2. The majority of the participants agreed that the teachers’ attitude factor is one of the most significant factors during e-learning implementation. One possible explanation of this finding is as follows: teachers play a vital role in the learning process in general and in e-learning in particular. The more enthusiastic teachers are about e-learning, the more they will motivate students in all their educational practices. While rapid transition to distance online elearning was a mandatory and necessary action to enssure the learning continuity during the COVID 19 pandemic, that posed many chanllenges for instructors. However, educational institutions can help their teachers adapt to new forms of education [24].

Ali et al (2011) [25] indicated that the teacher’s behavior affects the interaction between students and lecturers as well as the acceptance and satisfaction of students with the learning experience. Besides, the research results also show that the willingness of lecturers to consult, provide feedback and answer questions (especially in distance education) is very important, having an impact on students learning experiences [25]. This result is also consistent with the studies of Selim (2007) [17] and McPherson and Nunest (2008) [26], indicating that the teaching style and method are applied in the teaching process, and the cooperation and interaction in the teaching process. The teaching process also increases the “motivation and attitude towards e-learning” of students and improves student satisfaction.

Several limitation should also be considered. First, the collection data was conducted when students of HUP learnt directly at school and the online learning stopped. We only conducted online surveys through submitting a google form on the general class groups and could not attached on the e-learning platform. Therefore, not every students in the class had access to our online questionnaires. This may lead to the low online response rate. The direct survey form was preferred to increase the response rate. Second, due to the nature of a cross-sectional design, we cannot establish causal relationships between independent variables and the satisfaction. Third, the generalization of our study is limited by the convenience sampling strategy.

Conclusion

This study revealed critical success factors influencing e-learners’ satisfaction. It can be concluded that instructor dimension, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and system and technological dimensions, are the most important success factor dimensions to influences the satisfaction of e-learner. This study provides insights for institutions to strengthen their e-learning implementations and further improve learner satisfaction. Thus, institutions may be recommended that they should pay more attention to the aforementioned factors to ensure the successful implementation of an e-learning system. Valuable lesson learned from E-learning period (Covid-19) will help HUP develop their distance learning programs to meet the learners’ demand in some diversity situation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following individuals for their assistance in developing the satisfaction questionnaire and participants in this study. We also thank to Hanoi University of Pharmacy for allowing us to conduct this research.

Data Availability

Data are available from the following Figshare repository URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/PONE-22-15672R2_xlsx/21564411 (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.21564411).

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) n.d. https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov) (accessed April 15, 2022).
  • 2.Tran LTT, Manuama EO, Vo DP, Nguyen HV, Cassim R, Pham M, et al. The COVID-19 global pandemic: a review of the Vietnamese Government response. Journal of Global Health Reports 2021;5:e2021030. 10.29392/001c.21951. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Martin M. Seeing is believing: the role of videoconferencing in distance learning. Br J Educ Technol 2005;36:397–405. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00471.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med 2006;81:207–12. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Welsh ET, Wanberg CR, Brown KG, Simmering MJ. E-learning: emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development 2003;7:245–58. 10.1046/j.1360-3736.2003.00184.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhang D, Nunamaker JF. Powering E-Learning In the New Millennium: An Overview of E-Learning and Enabling Technology. Information Systems Frontiers 2003;5:207–18. 10.1023/A:1022609809036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Childs S, Blenkinsopp E, Hall A, Walton G. Effective BlackwellPublishing,Ltd. e-learning for health professionals and students—barriers and their solutions. A systematic review of the literature—findings from the HeXL project. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2005:13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bączek M, Zagańczyk-Bączek M, Szpringer M, Jaroszyński A, Wożakowska-Kapłon B. Students’ perception of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100:e24821. 10.1097/MD.0000000000024821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bui T-H, Luong D-H, Nguyen X-A, Nguyen H-L, Ngo T-T. Impact of female students’ perceptions on behavioral intention to use video conferencing tools in COVID-19: Data of Vietnam. Data Brief 2020;32:106142. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.106142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Naciri A, Radid M, Kharbach A, Chemsi G. E-learning in health professions education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2021;18:27. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Patelis N, Bisdas T, Jing Z, Feng J, Trenner M, Tri Nugroho N, et al. Vascular e-Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The EL-COVID Survey. Ann Vasc Surg 2021;77:63–70. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shawaqfeh MS, Al Bekairy AM, Al-Azayzih A, Alkatheri AA, Qandil AM, Obaidat AA, et al. Pharmacy Students Perceptions of Their Distance Online Learning Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study. J Med Educ Curric Dev 2020;7:2382120520963039. doi: 10.1177/2382120520963039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Liu L, Caliph S, Simpson C, Khoo RZ, Neviles G, Muthumuni S, et al. Pharmacy Student Challenges and Strategies towards Initial COVID-19 Curriculum Changes. Healthcare 2021;9:1322. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9101322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Frehywot S, Vovides Y, Talib Z, Mikhail N, Ross H, Wohltjen H, et al. E-learning in medical education in resource constrained low- and middle-income countries. Human Resources for Health 2013;11:4. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-11-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Salter SM, Karia A, Sanfilippo FM, Clifford RM. Effectiveness of E-learning in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ 2014;78:83. doi: 10.5688/ajpe78483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Alhabeeb A, Rowley J. E-learning critical success factors: Comparing perspectives from academic staff and students. Computers & Education 2018;127:1–12. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Selim HM. Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education 2007;49:396–413. 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Motaghian H, Hassanzadeh A, Moghadam DK. Factors affecting university instructors’ adoption of web-based learning systems: Case study of Iran. Computers & Education 2013;61:158–67. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chen H-R, Tseng H-F. Factors that influence acceptance of web-based e-learning systems for the in-service education of junior high school teachers in Taiwan. Evaluation and Program Planning 2012;35:398–406. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chow M, Herold DK, Choo T-M, Chan K. Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers & Education 2012;59:1136–44. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Li Y, Duan Y, Fu Z, Alford P. An empirical study on behavioural intention to reuse e-learning systems in rural China. British Journal of Educational Technology 2012;43:933–48. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01261.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Šumak B, Heričko M, Pušnik M. A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior 2011;27:2067–77. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ong C-S, Lai J-Y, Wang Y-S. Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & Management 2004;41:795–804. 10.1016/j.im.2003.08.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alzubaidi H, Jirjees FJ, Franson KL, Saidawi W, Othman AM, Rabeeah ZH, et al. A global assessment of distance pharmacy education amid COVID-19: teaching, assessment and experiential training. Int J Pharm Pract 2021;29:633–41. doi: 10.1093/ijpp/riab064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ali A, Ahmad I. Key Factors for Determining Students’ Satisfaction in Distance Learning Courses: A Study of Allama Iqbal Open University 2011:17. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.McPherson MA, Nunes JM. Critical issues for e-learning delivery: what may seem obvious is not always put into practice: Critical issues for e-learning delivery. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2008;24:433–45. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00281.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye

18 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-15672Factors influencing the E-learning system usage during the COVID-19 pandemic in VietnamPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Kindly respond as much as possible to all the issues raised by both reviewers to improve the quality of your paper.  Highlight all significant limitations in the appropriate sections. Ensure that you review PLOS ONE author guidelines and edit your manuscript accordingly. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by September 1, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5). To that effect, please ensure that your submission is free of typos and grammatical errors. 

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

6. Please include a copy of Table 5 which you refer to in your text on page 8.

7. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables should be uploaded as separate "supporting information" files.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The research uses basic statistics.

The research focuses on one unique department of one university.

The research misses recent literature review.

The research discussion is well stablished.

The conclusions need further development.

Reviewer #2: Introduction

Line 48: Please list software properly - e.g. Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, CA, USA)

Most points should be simply reported in Into and then discussed in the Discussion Section

Lines 63-65: “many studies have been conducted to evaluate the education of health students” would be more broadly described as “many studies have been conducted to evaluate the education of health students and medical specialties”. At this point you can cite a recent international multicenter research work, such as Vascular e-Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The EL-COVID Survey, Ann Vasc Surg 2021; 77: 63–70, DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.08.001

M&M

Line 72: What does “a convenience sample” mean?

How did you make sure that participants did not submit an online and an offline survey form?

Were the questionnaires validated?

How did you validate the online submitted data? Were there any duplicates?

Line 100-104: Do you think that the filtering of the offline forms by the academic staff could result into any bias?

I was left with the impression that classic teaching was halted due to COVID. You mention that offline forms were distributed in classes and laboratories. There is a conflict in these statements. Please explain further.

Apart from email distribution of the forms, did you include an online form within the e-learning platform?

Results:

Lines 127-128: The online participation was lower than the offline participation. Wouldn’t this be strange when we are evaluating e-learning?

Discussion

Please include any segment necessary as per the above mentioned points.

Overall

Please keep a consistent reference style.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278109. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278109.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Sep 2022

August 25th, 2022

Subject: Revision submission (PONE-D-22-15672)

Dear Prof. Ogachukwu Chinedum Okoye,

We would like to send the revision of the article entitled "Factors influencing the E-learning system usage during the COVID019 pandemic in Vietnam" for publication in Journal of Plos One. We would like to thank the reviewer(s) and editor(s) for the valuable comments and suggestion. All the issues concerned were well revised and addressed:

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer 1:

1. The research uses basic statistics. The research focuses one unique department of one university.

Author's response: At the time of the study, my university only specialized in Pharmacy. Therefore, the study was carried out throughout the school with all pharmacy students.

2. The research misses recent literature review.

Author's response: We have updated recent studies (line 69, line 234; line 266 );

3. The research discussion is well stablished.

Authors' response: Thank you for your positive remarks on our manuscript.

4. The conclusions need further development

Authors' response: We have developed more conclusions. Valuable lesson learned from E-learning period (Covid-19) will help HUP develop their distance learning programs to meet the learners’ demand in some diversity situation (line 292-294)

Reviewer 2:

5. Line 48: Please list software properly - e.g. Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, San Jone, CA, USA)

Authors' response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the software listing: Google Meet (Google, Mountain View, CA, USA), Microsoft Team (Microsoft, Redmond, DC, USA), Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, CA, USA) (line 48-49)

6. Most points should be simply reported in Intro and then discussed in the Discusion section

Authors' response: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed and edited.

7. Line 63-65: “many studies have been conducted to evaluate the education of health students” would be more broadly described as “many studies have been conducted to evaluate the education of health students and medical specialties”. At this point you can cite a recent international multicenter research work, such as Vascular e-Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The EL-COVID Survey, Ann Vasc Surg 2021; 77: 63–70, DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.08.001

Authors' response: Thank you for your detailed comment. We have edited and added citations (line 67 and line 69)

8. Line 72: What does “a convenience sample” mean?

Authors' response: We have added in the research method more clearly how to select the sample. Students presenting at the practical session or the theoretical session were recruited to the offline survey. The online form was only applied to final year students who finished the theory or practice at school. When participating in the online survey, the students accessed the questionaire through the group on the online platform of their class. Students accessing and participating in answering the online questionaires would be aggregated to analysis. (line 82-87).

9. How did you make sure that participants did not submit an online and an offline survey form?

Authors' response: We have added more information in the research method. For each class, we only did offline or online form. The offline survey was applied for students from the 2nd year to 4th year who participated in the practical session or the theoretical session. Researcher collected the questionnaire form in the field, so we would control their response. (Line 79-82)

10. Were the questionnaires validated?

Authors' response: We have added more information in the research method how to validate the questionnaires. (Line 103-110)

11. How did you validate the online submitted data? Were there any duplicates?

Authors' response: We have added more information in the research method. The personal information in the online questionaire including name, year of birth, class, phone number and email was used to check for duplicates (Line 86-88). In addition, the online data was collected from only final year students, so there were not any duplicates.

12. Line 100-104: Do you think that the filtering of the offline forms by the academic staff could result into any bias?

Authors' response: The questionnaires were distributed and collected by the reseach team. Therefore, we think that no questionnaires were filtered by the academic staff. We have added this information in the research method (Line 81-82 and 119).

13. I was left with the impression that classic teaching was halted due to COVID. You mention that offline forms were distributed in classes and laboratories. The is a conflict in these statements. Please explain further

Authors' response: Due to the impact of the COVID pandemic, the online learning was applied for theoretical session at HUP in a period of time. However, when the pandemic was controlled, many Vietnamese university including HUP allowed students to return to school to learn directly. Then, the practical sessions were applied. Our research was carried out when students studied the theory and practiced directly at HUP (line 74-76)

14. Apart from email distribution of the forms, did you include an online form within the e-learning platform

Authors' response: The collection data was conducted when students of HUP learnt directly at the school (the online learning stopped). Therefore, we only conducted online surveys through submitting a google form on the general class group and could not attach on the e-learning platform. We have added this information in the discussion section (line 276-280)

15. Line 127-128: The online participation was lower than the offline participation. Wouldn’t this be strange when we are evaluating e-learning?

Authors' response: As mentioned above, the collection data was conducted when students of HUP learnt directly at school and the online learning at HUP stopped. We only conducted online surveys through submitting a google form on the general class group and could not attached on the e-learning platform. Therefore, not every students in the class had access our online questionnaires. This may lead to the low online response rate. The direct survey form was preferred to increase the response rate (line 280-282).

16. Please include any segment necessary as per the above mentioned points

Authors' response: We have added the necessary discussions pointed out by reviewers (line 74-76)

17. Please keep a consistent reference style

Authors' response: We have reviewed and edited to ensure consistency in reference styles.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We hope that you are interested in our work.

Your sincerely,

Xuan Thang, Do

On behalf of all authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 1

Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye

20 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-15672R1Factors influencing the E-learning system usage during the COVID-19 pandemic in VietnamPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Specifically, we are concerned about some ethical issues such as privacy and confidentiality, which may have introduced some bias e.g. the survey required the students to provide personal identification. Kindly provide information on how you handled these ethical issues. We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the point raised above.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 15 days. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor. You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0278109. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278109.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Nov 2022

Author's response: To minimize bias, items about personal information would not compulsory (line 108-110). It was optional for respondents to provide personal information. So, it allowed respondents to answer the questionnaire comfortably and to minimize bias.

Besides, the personal information of participants including name, class, phone number and email which can track participants would be coded into ID and only one person could access the original data and this person would not participate in data analysis. The data which was cleaned and coded was imported to IBM SPSS for the purpose of analysis (line 122-125).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 2

Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye

10 Nov 2022

Factors influencing the E-learning system usage during the COVID-19 pandemic in Vietnam

PONE-D-22-15672R2

Dear Dr Thang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye

24 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-15672R2

Factors influencing the E-learning system usage during the COVID-19 pandemic in Vietnam 

Dear Dr. Do:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ogochukwu Chinedum Okoye

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available from the following Figshare repository URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/PONE-22-15672R2_xlsx/21564411 (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.21564411).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES