ArticleMedical science educator2024
Comparing Face-to-Face, Blended and Online Teaching Approaches for Practical Skill Acquisition: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Article in Medical science educator, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical students' perceptions of learning modalities: development and psychometric validation of the e-learning and face-to-face learning experience questionnaire.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Prenatal clinicians' perspectives on trauma-informed care competency and training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Utilisation of digital educational technology amongst undergraduate nursing students in the Western Cape.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2026Article
- A quasi-experimental comparison of outcome-based hybrid learning and traditional instruction in environmental health education for preventive medicine undergraduates from Guilin Medical University.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Feasibility study of a home-based sensory training system (STS) device for type 1 complex regional pain syndrome in England: Lessons learnt.British journal of pain · 2025Article
- Review
- Institutional Determinants of Academic Achievement in Biomedical Sciences: A Cross-Sectional Study of Nursing Students in Uganda.Advances in medical education and practice · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The efficacy of blended and online teaching methods for practical skill acquisition remains ambiguous, particularly for skills requiring haptic awareness and/or sensory training. This study aims to compare three teaching methods (face-to-face, blended, online) for the acquisition of skills requiring sensory learning and haptic awareness. A secondary aim was to explore student experience of each teaching approach. Design: A post-test only randomised controlled trial. Methods: Forty-seven participants chose between learning two skills: manual measurement of blood pressure during exercise (BPM) and/or skin fold measurement using callipers (SKM). Participants were randomised to one of three learning groups: face-to-face ( Results: For SKM, there was a statistically significant difference in skill competency between the online learning group (17% achieved competency) and both the face-to-face (75% achieved competency; Conclusion: Both face-to-face and blended teaching methods were more effective at leading to skill acquisition and were preferred by students when compared to a fully online teaching method.
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.