ArticleJournal of medical systems2015
Introducing E-learning in Epidemiology Course for Undergraduate Medical Students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade: A Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive qualitative evaluation of the first ever full-time online course for medical students in one middle-income country.The Libyan journal of medicine · 2023Article
- Learning How to Order Imaging Tests and Make Subsequent Clinical Decisions: a Randomized Study of the Effectiveness of a Virtual Learning Environment for Medical Students.Medical science educator · 2021Article
- Evaluation of e-learning for medical education in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.Computers & education · 2020Article
- An Empirical Study of Neural Network-Based Audience Response Technology in a Human Anatomy Course for Pharmacy Students.Journal of medical systems · 2016Article
- A Review of Simulators with Haptic Devices for Medical Training.Journal of medical systems · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether e-learning as a new teaching concept was acceptable for second-year undergraduates and to compare attitudes and exam results of students who followed electronic compared with classroom seminars. The electronic seminars (e-seminars) were developed several months prior to start of the epidemiology course for second-year students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade. The students who applied for e-seminars accessed their content during summer semester (February-May) 2014. E-seminars were set according to the existing topics in practical workbook and designed using Moodle, a free, open-source, personal home page web application for producing modular internet-based courses. To evaluate the motives for enrollment and satisfaction with seminars, two surveys (pre- and post-course) were administered. Students' exam grades were registered over 4 exam sessions (June-October 2014) and compared according to seminar program. Out of 516 students in the second year, 60 (11.6 %) applied for e-seminars (mean age 21 years). Students considered the reason "It's easier to do assignments from home" as the strongest motive to participate. When compared to classroom seminars, students in e-seminars had significantly more fun (p = 0.003), thought that e-seminars were better mode to learn epidemiology (p = 0.030) and would recommend them to other colleagues (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in average grade received at the oral exam in epidemiology (t = 0.071, p = 0.944). E-seminars in undergraduate epidemiology course add a novel, easy-to-follow and amusing mode of learning. Based on this pilot study, e-seminars in epidemiology will be available for next generations of students, while further improvement of e-seminars could include expansion of seminar syllabus and development of discussion fora.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.