ArticleBMC medical education2023
Online medical education using a Facebook peer-to-peer learning platform during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study exploring learner and tutor acceptability of Facebook as a learning platform.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. 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.
- Students' perspectives on the use of social media in anatomy medical education: A survey study.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- E-learning Challenges among Healthcare Students: A Scoping Review.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2026Review
- The value of a peer-to-peer teaching community in medical education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Digital Dementia Education and Training for Informal Carers: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Article
- Article
- Online learning resources and social media platforms used by medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, higher education institutions have been moving teaching online, accelerated by the pandemic. The Remote Learning Project (RLP), based at the Norwich Medical School (NMS) in the United Kingdom (U.K.), was a peer-to-peer teaching program developed to supplement medical school teaching during the pandemic. The teaching was delivered through Facebook using peer-to-peer teaching. Tutors were final year medical students, teaching medical student learners in lower years. Tutors and learners perception of peer-to-peer online learning delivered through the Facebook Social Media (SoMe) platform was investigated.
methodsThis qualitative study recruited tutor and learner participants from NMS by email, participation in the study was voluntary. Online semi-structured interviews of both tutors and learners in the remote learning project were conducted. The data was analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsSeven participants were interviewed. Five themes were identified; education (learning/teaching), productivity, data security, professionalism, and usability of the platform. Learners enjoyed the asynchronous nature of the platform and both learners and tutors enjoyed the peer-to-peer nature of the RLP, including the ability to immediately and easily answer on Facebook comments. Some learners felt distracted on Facebook, whilst others enjoyed the reminders. The mix of social and professional on the platform was met with caution from tutors. Both learners and tutors enjoyed the familiarity of the platform.
conclusionsThe study found that SoMe may be a credible platform to deliver online peer-to-peer teaching. Educators should consider the ergonomics of SoMe platforms when designing online curriculums. Guidelines for educators should be developed to better guide educators on the effective and safe use of SoMe as a learning tool.
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.