ArticlePloS one2024
Education in focus: Significant improvements in student learning and satisfaction with ophthalmology teaching delivered using a blended learning approach.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A Systematic Review of the Adequacy of Undergraduate Ophthalmology Education in the United Kingdom.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to measure student satisfaction with a revised ophthalmology delivery format, which due to the pandemic had previously relied on a remote online flipped classroom (OFC) format compared to a blended learning format. This educational strategy combined online learning with in-person seminars and practical patient centred sessions. Our previous investigations demonstrated a significant lack of student satisfaction with a curriculum solely reliant on a remote OFC, as such we hypothesised that a blended learning approach would result in improved levels of student satisfaction and knowledge gain.
methodsNon-randomised intervention study of two groups; group 1 = OFC group and group 2 = BL group, compared perspectives of 4th year ophthalmology students using a validated course evaluation questionnaire (CEQ).
resultsA total of 59 students from the BL group (n = 257; response rate = 23.0%) and 28 from the OFC group agreed to participate in the study (n = 114; response rate = 24.6%). Participants in the BL group felt it was easier to determine the standard of work that was expected (77.42% v 60.71%) and demonstrated significantly increased satisfaction with staff motivation of students (95.16% v 64.29%, p <0.001) and provision of feedback (74.19% v 46.43%, p = 0.004), compared to the OFC group. Furthermore, students in the BL group also felt the course significantly improved their analytical skills (64.52% v 42.85%, p = 0.023) and ability to work as part of team (69.36% v 25%, p <0.001) as well as reporting reduced dissatisfaction with the level of choice afforded in terms of how they would learn (33.88% v 60.71%, p = 0.31) and the how they were assessed (59.68% v 89.28%, p = 0.004). No evidence of a statistical difference in exam score was observed.
conclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic necessitated an unavoidable pivot to online and distance learning, to meet the challenges presented by government mandates and social distancing requirements. Since many of these directives have been reversed, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness and learner perceptions' of the online and distance learning interventions. In this study we demonstrated a significant student preference for BL compared to the OFC approach, with comparable student performances determined by MCQ examinations. Our findings suggest a preference for reintroducing in-person and patient engagement activities in post-pandemic health professions education.
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.