Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36656885›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine2023

Educational Podcast Impact on Student Study Habits and Exam Performance.

James McCarthy, Kelsey Porada, Robert Treat

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James McCarthyMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Kelsey PoradaMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Robert TreatMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Medical College of Wisconsin · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmerging technologies, trainees' proficiency with digital resources, and the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the role of mobile and asynchronous learning methods in medical education. Educational podcasts have gained popularity in both formal curricula and independent learning, but their impact on educational outcomes has not been well studied.

methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of third-year medical students during pediatrics clerkship. An educational podcast series titled "Peds Soup" was introduced to students as a voluntary study resource. We surveyed students at the end of the rotation to assess study habits and perceptions of the podcast. We compared survey responses from podcast users and nonusers, and used standardized pediatrics subject examination scores to measure knowledge differences between groups.

resultsEighty-three students participated in the study. Peds Soup listeners (n=43) reported spending significantly more time studying during clerkship (M=16.5, SD=9.0 vs M=12.4, SD=9.2 hours/week, P=.009) than nonlisteners. Users expressed positive views toward the podcast's impact on introducing, reinforcing, and helping apply knowledge, and endorsed that Peds Soup made it easier to find time to study. Examination scores did not differ between the two groups. DISCUSSION: The podcast demonstrated a reaction-level impact, with users reporting positive attitudes toward the podcast's impact and spending more time studying during pediatrics clerkship. Podcasts have strong potential as a supplement to existing curricula, where they can fill a need for interested learners. Future research should focus on the relationship between time spent and knowledge gain or utilize alternative measures of knowledge.

Indexed as

Clinical ClerkshipCOVID-19Students, MedicalChildEducational MeasurementHabitsHumansPandemicsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36656885
PMCPMC10681334
OpenAlexW4313643536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.