Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38362915›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2024

Chiropractic students' perception of remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Eniabitobi Kuyinu, Stephanie G B Sullivan, Kate P Hayes

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Eniabitobi Kuyinu
Stephanie G B Sullivan
Kate P Hayes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate chiropractic students' preferences and perceptions of remote learning with a secondary aim of comparing individuals with and without learning challenges.

methodsFollowing the mandatory period of remote education, a 33-question, mixed-methods, anonymous online survey was distributed from March to September 2021 to a single-campus chiropractic student body with an estimated sample study population of N = 1375. Demographic variables, self-reported learning challenges, technology skills, and perceptions of remote and on-ground learning delivery modalities were gathered. Percentages, measures of central tendency, and chi-square tests were performed on the data.

resultsThere were 117 participants (8.5%), of whom 63.2% were female (n = 74) and 87.2% (n = 102) were aged 18-34 years. Self-identified learning challenges were present in 33.3% (n = 39) of participants, of whom 28 stated they had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or attention-deficit disorder. More than 85.5% (n = 100) of participants agreed they were proficient with the necessary technology. For basic science classes with a lecture and lab component, 61.5% (n = 72) preferred on-ground labs and remote lectures. Participants agreed that remote lectures and on-ground labs were a good use of time (75.2% [n = 88] and 79.5% [n = 93], respectively). There was a significant χ2 between individuals with and without learning challenges for the perception of "stimulating and interesting" (p = .044) and "attention" (p = .001) for on-ground lectures.

conclusionChiropractic students preferred remote and on-ground education differentially for labs and lectures. On-ground labs provided greater perceived educational benefits; perceived benefits of remote lecture courses were only modestly supported. Students with self-identified learning challenges presented with some differences related to perception of on-ground lectures.

Indexed as

ChiropracticDistanceEducation

Identifiers

PMID38362915
PMCPMC11097214
OpenAlexW4391883448

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.