ArticleHNO2024
[How much digitization do ENT curricula need? : Opportunities and limits from the perspective of students and teachers].
Article in HNO, 2024. 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.
- Final-year logbooks in otorhinolaryngology in Germany - insights from a needs analysis and user experience study of final-year students and supervisors.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Article
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
backgroundDigitalization has long been an integral part of students' everyday lives and increasingly also of their medical training. It seems to be an unwritten law that "digital natives" want as much digitalization as possible. This study aims to shed more light on how students in the clinical phase of medical studies perceive the increasing digitalization of teaching and what they need for good education. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study analyzed two surveys that were conducted using an online questionnaire. On the one hand, students in the 5th-9th semesters of the medical faculty at the University of Hamburg (n = 282) were surveyed (survey 1). Another survey addressed all employees of ENT clinics in Germany (n = 175; survey 2).
resultsA total of 76 students took part in survey 1 and 123 lecturers in survey 2. The results show that both students and lecturers do not want face-to-face teaching to be completely replaced by digital formats. A total of 72.7% of students reject the possibility of teaching practical skills through digital formats. The majority of students surveyed stated that offline formats improve their concentration (61.1%), participation probability (63.9%), and motivation to learn (76.6%). In contrast, 40.2% of lecturers see digitalization as a way to reduce the workload without any relevant loss in teaching quality.
conclusionDigital teaching formats have a negative impact on the medical education of the students surveyed. Interaction and physical presence are needed to increase the motivation to learn. This leads to the first conclusion that students are critical of the increasing digitalization of medical studies.
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.