Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29945579›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2018

Mobile learning in medicine: an evaluation of attitudes and behaviours of medical students.

Thomas J G Chase, Adam Julius, Joht Singh Chandan, Emily Powell, Charles S Hall, Benedict Lyle Phillips, Ryan Burnett, Deborah Gill, Bimbi Fernando

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. ToxRunner: the Development of a Non-commercial Mobile Digital Question Bank for the Graduate Medical Education Sub-specialty of Medical Toxicology.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Thomas J G ChaseUniversity College London, Gower St, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Adam JuliusRespiratory Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Joht Singh ChandanGeneral Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
Emily PowellMedicine, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SW10 9NH, UK.
Charles S HallThe Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel road, London, E1 1BB, UK.
Benedict Lyle PhillipsGuy's and St Thomas' Foundation Trust, Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Ryan BurnettRoyal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Medicine of the Elderly, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK.
Deborah GillAcademic Centre for Medical Education, University College London Medical School, London, UK. deborah.gill@ucl.ac.uk.
Bimbi FernandoRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Transplant Surgery, London, NW3 2QG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile learning (mLearning) devices (such as tablets and smartphones) are increasingly part of the clinical environment but there is a limited and somewhat conflicting literature regarding the impact of such devices in the clinical learning environment. This study aims to: assess the impact of mLearning devices in the clinical learning environment on medical students' studying habits, attitudes towards mobile device supported learning; and the perceived reaction of clinicians and patients to the use of these devices as part of learning in the clinical setting.

methodsOver three consecutive academic years, 18 cohorts of medical students (total n = 275) on a six-week rotation at a large teaching hospital in London were supplied with mLearning devices (iPad mini) to support their placement-based learning. Feedback on their experiences and perceptions was collected via pre- and post-use questionnaires.

resultsThe results suggest mLearning devices have a positive effect on the students' perceived efficiency of working, while experience of usage not only confirmed pre-existing positive opinions about devices but also disputed some expected limitations associated with mLearning devices in the clinical workplace. Students were more likely to use devices in 'down-time' than as part of their clinical learning. As anticipated, both by users and from the literature, universal internet access was a major limitation to device use. The results were inconclusive about the student preference for device provision versus supporting a pre-owned device.

conclusionM-learning devices can have a positive impact on the learning experiences medical students during their clinical attachments. The results supported the feasibility of providing mLearning devices to support learning in the clinical environment. However, universal internet is a fundamental limitation to optimal device utilisation.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCell PhoneComputers, HandheldLearningAdultEducation, MedicalFemaleHospitals, TeachingHumansLondonMalePerceptionStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultElectronic learningLearning and study skillsMedical educationMedical students

Identifiers

PMID29945579
PMCPMC6020287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.