ArticleBMC medical education2024
Evaluation of the BOPPPS model on otolaryngologic education for five-year undergraduates.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and evaluation of a blended learning model integrating ARCS and BOPPPS for Endodontics education.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- BOPPPS model with virtual simulation system for otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery nursing interns: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of a case-based learning program integrated with the BOPPPS model in neurosurgical residency training: a prospective controlled educational study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Innovating transfusion training: a BOPPPS-based blended learning model to enhance nursing interns' specialized competency.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The impact of a decision tree-based BOPPPS blended teaching model on cognitive performance in clinical epidemiology.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the BOPPPS model (bridge-in, learning objective, pre-test, participatory learning, post-test, and summary) in otolaryngology education for five-year undergraduate students.
methodsA non-randomized controlled trial was conducted with 167 five-year undergraduate students from Anhui Medical University, who were allocated to an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group received instruction using the BOPPPS model, while the control group underwent traditional teaching methods. The evaluation of the teaching effectiveness was performed through an anonymous questionnaire based on the course evaluation questionnaire. Students' perspectives and self-evaluations were quantified using a five-point Likert scale. Furthermore, students' comprehension of the course content was measured through a comprehensive final examination at the end of the semester.
resultsStudents in the experimental group reported significantly higher scores in various competencies compared to the control group: planning work (4.27 ± 0.676 vs. 4.03 ± 0.581, P < 0.05), problem-solving skills (4.31 ± 0.624 vs. 4.03 ± 0.559, P < 0.01), teamwork abilities (4.19 ± 0.704 vs. 3.87 ± 0.758, P < 0.05), and analytical skills (4.31 ± 0.719 vs. 4.05 ± 0.622, P < 0.05). They also reported higher motivation for learning (4.48 ± 0.618 vs. 4.09 ± 0.582, P < 0.01). Additionally, students in the experimental group felt more confident tackling unfamiliar problems (4.21 ± 0.743 vs. 3.95 ± 0.636, P < 0.05), had a clearer understanding of teachers' expectations (4.31 ± 0.552 vs. 4.08 ± 0.555, P < 0.05), and perceived more effort from teachers to understand their difficulties (4.42 ± 0.577 vs. 4.13 ± 0.59, P < 0.01). They emphasized comprehension over memorization (3.65 ± 1.176 vs. 3.18 ± 1.065, P < 0.05) and received more helpful feedback (4.40 ± 0.574 vs. 4.08 ± 0.585, P < 0.01). Lecturers were rated better at explaining concepts (4.42 ± 0.539 vs. 4.08 ± 0.619, P < 0.01) and making subjects interesting (4.50 ± 0.546 vs. 4.08 ± 0.632, P < 0.01). Overall, the experimental group expressed higher course satisfaction (4.56 ± 0.542 vs. 4.34 ± 0.641, P < 0.05). In terms of examination performance, the experimental group scored higher on the final examination (87.7 ± 6.7 vs. 84.0 ± 7.7, P < 0.01) and in noun-interpretation (27.0 ± 1.6 vs. 26.1 ± 2.4, P < 0.01).
conclusionThe BOPPPS model emerged as an effective and innovative teaching method, particularly in enhancing students' competencies in otolaryngology education. Based on the findings of this study, educators and institutions were encouraged to consider incorporating the BOPPPS model into their curricula to enhance the learning experiences and outcomes of 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.