ArticleKorean journal of medical education2020
The feasibility and satisfaction of an online global health education course at a single medical school: a retrospective study.
Article in Korean journal of medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Virtual global health in graduate medical education: a systematic review.International journal of medical education · 2022Pooled it
- The effectiveness of competency-based global health education programs for medical students.Korean journal of medical education · 2024Article
- Beyond the surface: unraveling global health curriculum insights through interviews of learners and educators using the CIPP model.Korean journal of medical education · 2024Article
- Remote online global health education among U.S. medical students during COVID-19 and beyond.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Is it feasible and effective to provide faculty development programs online for clinical teachers?Korean journal of medical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and satisfaction of an online global health education course for medical students in comparison with an in-person of the course and to assess students' preferences regarding online methods of delivery.
methodsSecond-year medical students enrolled in this course in 2019 (in-person) and 2020 (online). The attendance rate, satisfaction in the course evaluation survey, and academic achievement on the written final examination were utilized to compare the two different methods of course delivery. The medical students who took the online course were also asked about their preferences regarding the method of course delivery and the advantages and drawbacks of each method of online lectures.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the attendance rate and overall satisfaction between the two groups. The mean score on the written examination of the online course (84.1±19.6) showed comparable effects to the in-person course (78.0±18.3). The percentages of students who achieved high performance (55.5%) and the achieved minimum requirement (95.9%) were also maintained compared to the in-person course (14.6% and 93.6%, respectively). Medical students preferred the online course to the in-person course; in particular, they preferred prerecorded videos over live streaming online lectures.
conclusionThe participation, satisfaction, and the academic achievement of the online course were comparable to those of the in-person course. However, the greatest drawback of the online course was the lack of interaction between peer learners. Therefore, diverse methods for online education should be considered to increase students' sense of belonging to a learning community.
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.