ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2019
Practical points for brain-friendly medical and health sciences teaching.
Review in Journal of education and health promotion, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of distributed practice and retrieval practice in health professions education.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024Pooled it
- Redefining the Role of Medical Affairs Professionals as Innovators and Leaders in Industry-Led Medical Education.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Article
- The double-edged sword of emotions in medical education: A scoping review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Relationship between thinking styles and the academic achievement of occupational therapy students in Iran.Journal of education and health promotion · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpecial learning outcomes are considered for medical and health sciences education which can be acquired by some interactive learning systems in the human brain. Given the importance of this issue, based on literature, we attempted at mentioning certain practical points for medical and health sciences educators to employ in preclinical and clinical teaching. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched databases of PubMed, Proquest, Scopus, ERIC, and ISI Web of Science for relevant literature from January 2010 to January 2019.
resultsFrom a total of 1029 records, 30 articles along with 35 papers from snowballing and hand searching were included in this study. The following 12 main items were encompassed: teaching students the basic neuroscience of learning and set individual learning goals, "just right challenge" heeding the balance between supervision and autonomy, brain-friendly coaching, repetition with spaced learning, visualization as a powerful learning tool, multimodal teaching, cognitive learning and mental model, cognitive-emotional learning, active and social learning, creativity and art, sleep, medical faculty's participation regarding the courses of "neuro-education studies," and "neuro-myths" were suggested for brain-friendly medical and health sciences teaching.
conclusionsWe considered 12 practical points for brain-aware medical and health sciences teaching according to the recent literature on the basis of the association between education, cognitive science, neuroscience, and psychology. Interdisciplinary research and practice regarding this issue can improve teaching-learning quality, students' well-being, and ultimately patient outcomes.
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.