Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38098014›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Gamified versus non-gamified online educational modules for teaching clinical laboratory medicine to first-year medical students at a large allopathic medical school in the United States.

Marie Do, Kimberly Sanford, Susan Roseff, Alexandra Hovaguimian, Henrike Besche, Krisztina Fischer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marie DoDepartment of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1101 E. Marshall Street, Box 980662, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA. marie.do@vcuhealth.org.
Kimberly SanfordDepartment of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1101 E. Marshall Street, Box 980662, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA.
Susan RoseffDepartment of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1101 E. Marshall Street, Box 980662, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA.
Alexandra HovaguimianDepartment of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), 330 Brookline Avenue, Shapiro 8, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Henrike BescheHarvard Medical School, 260 Longwood Avenue TMEC368, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Krisztina FischerDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 260 Longwood Ave, Rm 160, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical educators seek innovative ways to engage learners efficiently and effectively. Gamification has been explored as one way to accomplish this feat; however, questions remain about which contexts gamification would be most useful. Time constraints and student interest present major barriers for teaching laboratory medicine to students. This study aims to compare two versions of an interactive online module, one gamified and one not, for teaching laboratory medicine concepts to pre-clinical medical students.

methodsFirst-year medical students reviewed either a gamified or non-gamified version of an interactive online module in preparation for an in-person flipped classroom session on Laboratory Medicine. Learning theory guided the design of the modules and both contained identical content, objectives, and structure. The "gamified" module included the additional elements of personalization, progress meters, points, badges, and story/role play. After reviewing the module, students completed an anonymous knowledge check and optional survey.

resultsOne hundred seventy-one students completed the post module knowledge check as assigned (82 gamified, 89 non-gamified). Knowledge check scores were higher for the students who reviewed the gamified module (p < 0.02), corresponding to an effect size of 0.4 for the gamified module. Eighty-one students completed optional post-module surveys (46 gamified, 35 non-gamified). Instructional efficiency was calculated using task difficulty questions and knowledge check scores, and the resulting instructional efficiency was higher for the gamified module. There was no significant difference in the student-reported time required to complete the modules. Additionally, both versions of the module were well received and led to positive ratings related to motivation and confidence. Finally, examination of open-ended survey results suggested that the addition of game elements added value to the gamified module and enhanced engagement and enjoyment.

conclusionsIn this setting, the addition of gamification to an interactive online module enhanced learning outcome, instructional efficiency, student engagement and enjoyment. These results should inspire further exploration of gamification for teaching Laboratory Medicine concepts to pre-clinical medical students.

Indexed as

MedicineStudents, MedicalHumansLaboratories, ClinicalLearningSchools, MedicalUnited StatesGamificationLaboratory MedicineMedical EducationOnline Preparatory Material

Identifiers

PMID38098014
PMCPMC10720092

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.