Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38950050›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Education in focus: Significant improvements in student learning and satisfaction with ophthalmology teaching delivered using a blended learning approach.

Andrea J Doyle, Conor C Murphy, Fiona Boland, Teresa Pawlikowska, Joan Ní Gabhann-Dromgoole

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andrea J DoyleSIM Centre for Simulation Education and Research, RCSI, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Conor C MurphyDept of Ophthalmology, Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital (RVEEH), RCSI, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Fiona BolandData Science Centre, RCSI, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3228-0046
Teresa PawlikowskaHealth Professions Education Centre (HPEC), RCSI, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Joan Ní Gabhann-DromgooleDept of Ophthalmology, Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital (RVEEH), RCSI, University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin 2, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-4247-3952

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Education, DistanceOphthalmologyPersonal SatisfactionStudents, MedicalAdultCOVID-19CurriculumEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansLearningMaleSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38950050
PMCPMC11216581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.