Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407376›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Pre-clinical remote undergraduate medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey study.

Bita Shahrvini, Sally L Baxter, Charles S Coffey, Bridget V MacDonald, Lina Lander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bita ShahrviniSchool of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Sally L BaxterViterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Charles S CoffeyDepartment of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology/ Head and Neck Surgery, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Bridget V MacDonaldSchool of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Lina LanderDepartment of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. linalander@health.ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6180-223X

Funding

San Diego Biomedical Informatics Education & Research (SABER)T15LM011271 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SHAMIM NEMATI · 2012 to 2026
$9.7M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM011271U.S. National Library of Medicine T15LM011271
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated a sudden transition to remote learning in medical schools. We aimed to assess perceptions of remote learning among pre-clinical medical students and subsequently to identify pros and cons of remote learning, as well as uncover gaps to address in ongoing curricular development.

methodsA survey was distributed to first- and second-year medical students at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine in March 2020. Frequencies of responses to structured multiple-choice questions were compared regarding impacts of remote learning on quality of instruction and ability to participate, value of various remote learning resources, living environment, and preparedness for subsequent stages of training. Responses to open-ended questions about strengths and weaknesses of the remote curriculum and overall reflections were coded for thematic content.

resultsOf 268 students enrolled, 104 responded (53.7% of first-year students and 23.9% of second-year students). Overall, students felt that remote learning had negatively affected the quality of instruction and their ability to participate. Most (64.1%) preferred the flexibility of learning material at their own pace. Only 25.5% of respondents still felt connected to the medical school or classmates, and feelings of anxiety and isolation were noted negatives of remote learning. Most second-year students (56.7%) felt their preparation for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam was negatively affected, and 43.3% felt unprepared to begin clerkships. In narrative responses, most students appreciated the increased flexibility of remote learning, but they also identified several deficits that still need to be addressed, including digital fatigue, decreased ability to participate, and lack of clinical skills, laboratory, and hands-on learning.

conclusionsVideocasted lectures uploaded in advance, electronic health record and telehealth training for students, and training for teaching faculty to increase technological fluency may be considered to optimize remote learning curricula.

Indexed as

CurriculumAdultCaliforniaCOVID-19Education, DistanceEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCOVID-19Distance learningMedical educationPre-clinicalRemote learning

Identifiers

PMID33407376
PMCPMC7786143

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.