ArticleBMJ open2021
Usability testing of an e-learning resource designed to improve medical students' physical activity prescription skills: a qualitative think-aloud study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Refining acceptance and commitment therapy in daily life (ACT-DL) for clinical care: Optimization and mixed-methods evaluation of usability and implementation feasibility.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Exploring undergraduate medical students and faculty perspectives on blended learning: a qualitative study in China.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Physical activity promotes well-being: medical students' engagement and perspective. A cross-sectional study scoped through innovation and technology.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Review
- Effect of exercise prescription teaching on exercise quality and mental health status of college students.World journal of psychiatry · 2023Article
- Creating a sport and exercise medicine undergraduate syllabus: a delphi study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAn e-learning resource (MEdic GAming, MEGA) was developed based on the contents of the Faculty of Sports and Exercise Medicine exercise prescription booklet. This study aimed to (i) explore medical students' perspectives of physical activity promotion and e-learning and (ii) investigate medical students' response to the design, content and usability of the MEGA e-learning resource.
designQualitative think-aloud interview study.
settingA London medical school.
participants19 undergraduate medical students were interviewed using the think-aloud method while using the e-learning resource concurrently.
resultsIn general, medical students felt current education on physical activity is inadequate and held a strong desire for more teaching on exercise medicine. Students believed the MEGA e-learning resource addressed a gap in their knowledge on physical activity but noted e-learning should not replace face-to-face teaching and suggested physical activity education would be best delivered through a blended learning approach. Students felt such an approach would allow better opportunity to practice physical activity counselling skills with patients while on clinical placement. Students' motivation to engage with the MEGA e-learning resource was positively impacted by aesthetically appealing design and interactive gamification elements such as self-assessment quizzes and visual progress tracking.
conclusionMedical students value the role of physical activity in health but are disappointed by the lack of teaching within the current medical curriculum. E-learning resources, such as MEGA, which contain interactive features are a viable means to integrate physical activity into the undergraduate curriculum but should be supplemented by the opportunity to practice physical activity counselling in-person.
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.