ArticleKorean journal of medical education2024
Exploring the responses of preclinical medical students and professors to flipped learning for the development of clinical reasoning.
Article in Korean journal of medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study developed and implemented case-based flipped learning using illness script worksheets and investigated the responses of preclinical students and professors to the intervention in terms of its effectiveness, design, and implementation.
methodsThe study was conducted at a medical school in Korea, where the "clinical reasoning method" course, originally a lecture-oriented course, was redesigned into a flipped learning. In total, 42 second-year medical students and 15 professors participated in this course. After the class, online surveys were conducted, and a focus group interview was held with seven students to explore the students' experiences in more detail.
resultsIn total, 37 students and seven professors participated in the survey. The mean score for all items is 3.12/4 for the student survey and 3.43/4 for the professor survey. The focus group interview results were categorized as the beneficial aspects and challenges for the development of clinical reasoning.
conclusionThe findings indicated that their responses to the intervention were generally positive, and it is thought to be an effective instructional method for fostering clinical reasoning skills in preclinical medical students.
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.