ArticleInfection2025
Innovative teaching in infection prevention and control and infectious diseases education: testing and investigation of student perceptions.
Article in Infection, 2025. 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.
- Awareness and practices survey of two ancient zoonotic diseases in Dhading District of Nepal.BMC public health · 2026Article
- SPOC (Small Private Online Course)-infused flipped classroom: a promising approach to address knowledge lag and practice gaps in infectious diseases teaching.Frontiers in medicine · 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
purposeMany curricula promote frontal teaching approaches, potentially decreasing interaction and motivation - also within infection prevention & control and infectious diseases (IPC/ID). We aimed to investigate the implementation of three innovative teaching methods (ITM) within IPC/ID education: game-based learning (GBL), peer-teaching (PT) and misinformation detection (MID).
methodsMulti-phase study involving third-year medical students was conducted. Phase-1 included a cross-sectional survey, assessing previous ITM-experience and interest to participate in phase-2, where the students were divided into teams. Each team prepared a video covering an IPC/ID-topic with deliberately placed misinformation, which had to be identified and corrected by the opposing team, followed by qualitative evaluation (phase-3). Finally, the MID-concept was incorporated into regular curricula in a non-competitive environment (phase-4) and evaluated within a cohort not involved in phases 1-3.
results276 students responded to phase-1. 58% expressed interest in participating in phase-2. Roughly 59% [47-71%] CI-95% of respondents without previous PT-experience stated interest in PT, while the interest in GBL and MID was even higher. 19 students participated in phase-2. All topic MID-scores ranged between 6 and 8/10 points, except for emporiatrics (3/10). Post-hoc analysis revealed a positive student-perception of ITM, particularly GBL. Phase-4 received 103 responses with general positive evaluation. Major agreements existed on the usefulness of critical information evaluation for medical practice (82% [75-91%] CI-95%) and of MID during studies (69% [59-79%] CI-95%).
conclusionour results hint at a relatively high interest in ITM and show MID applicability in regular IPC/ID curricula, which could be of advantage for the learning environment.
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.