ArticleBMJ open2022
Learning team-based quality improvement in a virtual setting: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences with online group work among master's students in health sciences: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- What Do We Know About Contemporary Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Training Curricula in Health Workers? A Rapid Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Facilitators and barriers to online group work in higher education within health sciences - a scoping review.Medical education online · 2024Article
- A case study: lessons learned from online tutorial to improve practice readiness for family medicine residents in Palestine.BMC medical education · 2024Article
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
objectiveThe objective was to explore students' perceptions of learning quality improvement (QI) in a virtual setting and identify factors that promote or inhibit virtual learning.
designWe used an exploratory case study design with focus group interviews. The data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach, with an analytical framework derived from activity theory and Bloom's revised taxonomy of six categories of cognitive processes of learning.
settingPostgraduate students participating in a virtual 1-day simulation module to learn QI at two universities in Norway.
participantsFour focus groups with a total of 12 participants.
resultsThe students' descriptions of learning outcomes indicate that the learning activity involved a variety of cognitive activities, including higher-order cognitive processes. We identified three themes pertaining to the students' experiences of the virtual learning activity: learning through active participation, constructing a virtual learning opportunity and creating a virtual learning environment. The students described that participation and active engagement led to a greater understanding and an integration of theory and practical improvement skills. They reported that to engage in the virtual learning opportunity, it was necessary to create a learning environment where they felt psychologically safe.
conclusionOur findings indicate that it is possible to facilitate collaborative learning integrating theoretical knowledge and practical skills in a virtual setting. Students experienced that engaging in the virtual learning activity contributed to the integration of theoretical knowledge and practical skills. Psychological safety seems to be important for students' engagement in the virtual learning activity. A virtual learning environment alters prior common norms for interaction based on physical presence, which in turn affect students feeling of psychological safety. Educators need to be aware of this and facilitate a virtual learning environment where students feel comfortable to engage.
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.