ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2023
Comparing Knowledge Acquisition and Retention Between Mobile Learning and Traditional Learning in Teaching Respiratory Therapy Students: A Randomized Control Trial.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Augmented Reality for Therapeutic Education in Patients with Diabetes: Short- and Mid-Term Learning Benefits.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparing Knowledge Acquisition and Retention Between Mobile Learning and Traditional Learning in Teaching Respiratory Therapy Students: A Randomized Control Trial [Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Mobile learning (m-learning) is one of the trends in health professions' education. It has a promising future in education, but it also presents various challenges and risks. This research seeks to highlight some of the greatest accomplishments, opportunities, and issues related to m-Learning in teaching and learning. We believe the findings help us maximize the positive effects of m-Learning while minimizing any potential drawbacks associated with the technological changes taking place in education. The study aimed to compare respiratory therapy students' knowledge acquisition and retention between using m-learning and traditional learning. Participants and Methods: Randomized pre-test, post-test, control group design was used. All 3rd year (N = 46) respiratory therapy students in one governmental university in Saudi Arabia were randomly assigned to either intervention or control group. Both groups took the same content of arterial blood gas lecture for 2 hours. The intervention group took the lecture using m-learning; two mobile apps: (1) ABG Book, (2) Arterial Blood Gas (Lite). The traditional learning (lecture-based learning) was used for the control group. The same test was conducted before, immediately after, and two weeks after the lecture. The duration of the test was 30 minutes. The data were analyzed using independent Results: Forty-five students participated. Although no statistically significant difference was found on knowledge acquisition and retention between the two types of learning (p = 0.305, p = 0.904, respectively), it was found among the three time-points within each group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Both m-learning and traditional learning are effective in increasing knowledge acquisition and retention. However, no one is better than the other. Further researches were needed with larger sample size through multi-institutional studies to validate the results of this study.
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.