ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparative effects of three different physical education teaching modes on college students' physical fitness during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of digital-based online physical education on undergraduate students' physical and psycho-emotional wellbeing.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Effects of blended learning on physical fitness and basketball skills of male college students: a cluster randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The impact of COVID-19 pre-university education on first-grade medical students. A performance study of students of a Department of Histology.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An appropriate teaching mode in physical education is crucial for ensuring effective education outcomes. Given the dynamic nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, teaching modes are often adjusted. However, there is a lack of in-depth research on the impact of different teaching modes on the outcomes of physical education. Our study aims to address this gap by conducting a comparative analysis of the teaching effectiveness of three different physical education modes among Chinese college students, with a focus on evaluating their impact on physical fitness. Method: This study adopted a longitudinal retrospective observational design. We systematically examined the three stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (stage 1: September 2020 to January 2021; stage 2: September 2021 to January 2022 and stage 3: February 2022 to July 2022), along with the three corresponding physical education teaching modes (classroom teaching, online teaching and blended teaching) and administered three physical fitness tests (T1, T2 and T3). The physical fitness test included 7 indicators: body mass index, vital capacity, 50-m run, standing long jump, sit-and-reach, pull-ups (male), 1000-m run (male), sit-ups (female) and 800-m run (female). A mixed ANOVA model was used to analyse the physical fitness test indicators across the three different teaching modes. Results: A total of 3363 college students (1616 males and 1747 females) enrolled in 2020 completed the three physical fitness tests. Most students were aged between 17 and 20 years old, and the BMI criteria indicated a normal distribution. The results indicated that there were significant differences in the overall training effectiveness for all students across vital capacity (p < 0.001, η Conclusion: These findings emphasize the importance of conducting online physical education during unforeseen public health events and highlight the comprehensive effects of blended physical education in the post-pandemic era. Future initiatives should prioritize targeted interventions to address the observed variations in various physical fitness indicators under different physical education teaching models.
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.