ArticleBMJ open2024
Paper-based versus digital-based learning among undergraduate medical, nursing and pharmaceutical students in Japan: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSince the emergence of COVID-19, university education has drastically transformed into digital-based learning (DBL). Online education has been well recognised as a promising mode of teaching; however, only a limited number of studies have reported the students' preferred format for academic learning.
designCross-sectional.
settingThe study was conducted in a university setting in Japan. A Google Forms online questionnaire was distributed to the participants between April and May 2022.
participantsA total of 939 undergraduate medical, nursing and pharmaceutical students in the pre-clinical grade were recruited, and 344 were included in the final analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME: The questionnaire assessed students' format preferences between paper-based learning (PBL) and DBL as it pertained to academic performance and eyestrain. In terms of academic performance, comprehension, memory retention and absorption (concentration) were assessed. We also explored the association between students' daily time spent using DBL and their digital preference by the Cochran-Armitage trend test and logistic regression analysis.
resultsA total of 344 (191 medical, 73 nursing and 80 pharmaceutical) university students completed the questionnaire (response rate 36.6%). An even distribution was observed in the preferred learning format for comprehension: PBL (32.0%), both formats equivalent (32.8%) and DBL (35.2%; digital preference). Only few students preferred DBL for memory retention (6.1%), absorption (6.7%) and eyestrain (1.2%). Although a positive association was observed between daily time spent using DBL and digital preference for comprehension, there was no association for memory retention, absorption and eyestrain.
conclusionAmong university students, DBL was just as preferred as PBL for comprehension; however, only a few students reported that DBL was better in terms of memory retention, absorption and eyestrain. A learning environment where students can study using PBL should be continued.
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.