Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38504238›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

WeChat mini program in laboratory biosafety education among medical students at Guangzhou Medical University: a mixed method study of feasibility and usability.

QianJun Li, JingJing Zhao, RuiChao Yan, QiJian Gao, Yao Zhen, Xue Li, Ying Liang, ShiHao Min, LiJuan Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

9 authors.

QianJun Li *Department of Clinic Laboratory, The Key Laboratory of Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies Center, National Center for Respiratory Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China. Liqianjun2123@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3314-0010
JingJing Zhao *Department of Clinic Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5477-920X
RuiChao YanThe Key Laboratory of Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
QiJian GaoDepartment of Clinic Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yao ZhenHaizhu District Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.
Xue Li *Department of Clinic Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Ying LiangDepartment of Clinic Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
ShiHao MinSpaceMax Technology Co., Ltd, Shanghai, China.
LiJuan Yang *School of Humanities, Guangdong Peizheng college, 53 Peizheng Road, Chii Town, Huadu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510830, China. alkaidwind@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4924-6074

Funding

Department of Education of Guangdong Province 2021455Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau 2060206
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaboratory biosafety should be a priority in all healthcare institutions. In traditional laboratory safety teaching students typically receive knowledge passively from their teachers without active involvement. The combination of experiential learning and mobile learning may provide students with greater engagement, retention, and application of knowledge. To address this issue, we developed and conducted a convergent mixed methods study to assess the feasibility and usability of a WeChat mini program (WMP) named WeMed for laboratory biosafety education for medical laboratory students at Guangzhou Medical University (GMU).

methodsThe study was conducted between November 2022 and October 2023 among second-year undergraduate students at GMU. It involved the concurrent collection, analysis, and interpretation of both qualitative and quantitative data to assess feasibility and usability. In the quantitative strand, two evaluations were conducted via online surveys from students (n = 67) after a four-week study period. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was used to evaluate usability, while self-developed questions were used to assess feasibility. Additionally, a knowledge test was administered 6 months after the program completion. In the qualitative strand, fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted, whereby a reflexive thematic analysis was utilized to analyze the interview data.

resultsThe overall SUS score is adequate (M = 68.17, SD = 14.39). The acceptability of the WeMed program is in the marginal high range. Most students agreed that WeMed was useful for learning biosafety knowledge and skills (13/14, 93%), while 79% (11/14) agreed it was easy to use and they intended to continue using it. After 6 months, a significant difference in the knowledge test scores was observed between the WeMed group (n = 67; 2nd year students) and the traditional training group (n = 90; 3rd year students). However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the absence of a pretest.

conclusionThe combination of experiential learning and mobile learning with WMP is a feasible tool for providing laboratory biosafety knowledge and skills. Ongoing improvements should be made in order to increase long-term acceptance.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalContainment of BiohazardsFeasibility StudiesHumansLearningUniversitiesBiosafety educationMedical laboratory scienceThe System Usability ScaleWeChat mini program

Identifiers

PMID38504238
PMCPMC10953223

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.