Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30683084›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2019

Medical students: what educational resources are they using?

Lucinda Wynter, Annette Burgess, Eszter Kalman, Jack Edward Heron, Jane Bleasel

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

130 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Lucinda WynterThe University of Sydney School of Medicine - Education Office, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. lucy.wynter@sydney.edu.au.
Annette BurgessThe University of Sydney School of Medicine - Education Office, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Eszter KalmanThe University of Sydney School of Medicine - Education Office, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jack Edward HeronThe University of Sydney School of Medicine - Education Office, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jane BleaselThe University of Sydney School of Medicine - Education Office, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of resources available to medical students studying a degree in medicine is growing exponentially. In addition to traditional learning resources such as lectures and textbooks, students are increasingly using e-learning tools like commercially available question banks to supplement their learning. Student preference for learning resources has not been described in detail, and a better understanding of the tools perceived to be useful could provide essential information to medical educators when designing and implementing medical curricula.

methodsWe invited 1083 undergraduate and postgraduate medical students from two major Australian universities to complete an online survey. Questions asked students to indicate the frequency with which they use various types of resources when learning new material or when revising previous content.

resultsApproximately one third (32.3%, N = 350) of invited participants completed the survey, and of those who responded, the gender distribution was even with a median age of 25 years. Making written notes and reading textbooks were the most frequently utilized resources for learning new material. Online or downloaded question banks were the most frequently used resource for revision. In addition to the use of traditional learning tools, the majority of students report using a variety of e-learning tools including online teaching videos (92%, n = 322) and question banks (90.6%, n = 317).

conclusionDespite the trend towards e-learning, traditional resources like attendance at face-to-face lectures remain the most popular for learning new material. The increasing use of question banks raises potential issues of poor alignment to medical school curricula. With the advantages of exam technique practice, time efficiency and multiplatform availability, their popularity is likely to continue. Evaluation of existing question banks is required to facilitate appropriate integration into the curricula, with equitable access for all students.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceStudents, MedicalTextbooks as TopicAdultAustraliaEducation, Medical, GraduateEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansInternetMaleSchools, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesE-learningLearning resourcesQuestion banks

Identifiers

PMID30683084
PMCPMC6347772

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.