Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37012955›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

Assessing the Knowledge and Perceptions of Medical Students After Using Kahoot! in Pharmacology Practical Sessions at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah.

Lana Shawwa, Fatemah Kamel

RetractedAbstract readRetracted Publication
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lana ShawwaMedical Education, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, SAU.
Fatemah KamelPharmacology Department, King Abdulaziz University Faculty of Medicine, Jeddah, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective  Game-based e-learning (GbEl) has been shown to motivate students significantly, encourage learning, and improve academic performance. Kahoot! is one such electronic tool, but its implementation and effectiveness in the medical education sector in Saudi Arabia have never been evaluated. In light of this, this study aimed to assess the implementation and efficacy of Kahoot! platform as a learning tool for pharmacology in Saudi Arabian medical education. Methods This was a cross-sectional mixed-methods study that employed a quantitative and qualitative approach. It explored the potential of technology-assisted assessment for the interactive learning process using Kahoot! online platform on the participation and performance of 274 Saudi female medical students in their general pharmacology practical sessions during their second year in the Faculty of Medicine (FOM) at King Abdulaziz University (KAU). Data were collected for four one-hour-long pharmacology practical sessions on routes of drug administration, pharmacokinetics (PK) I and II, and drug-drug interactions. The study also explored the perceptions of four faculty members as to how Kahoot! improved students' participation and performance. Results Cronbach's alpha value was used to determine the reliability of the questionnaire. Students' satisfactions with Kahoot! were largely positive. There was a statistically significant difference in the final exam difficulty indexes between topics covered through Kahoot! vs. control sessions. Kahoot! was found to be a practical, agreeable, and interactive formative tool that enhanced student engagement, motivation, and academic achievement. Teachers involved in the study agreed that the advantages of using Kahoot! vastly outweighed the disadvantages. Conclusion This study has demonstrated that Kahoot! increased student engagement and motivation, and improved academic achievements in a practical pharmacology course.

Indexed as

active learninggame-based educationkahootpharmacokineticspharmacologypractical sessions

Identifiers

PMID37012955
PMCPMC10066622

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.