ArticleBMJ open2024
Evidence on psychometric properties of self-report questionnaires in evaluating blended learning in health sciences university students: research protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Active Learning in Veterinary Anatomy Education: Investigating the Impact of Peer-Led Q&A Games and Multimedia on Student Perceptions.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Psychometric Properties of Self-report Questionnaires in Evaluating Blended Learning in Health Science University Students: A Systematic Review.Acta medica Philippina · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDue to the COVID-19 outbreak, schools had to switch online. As universities ease face-to-face (F2F) schooling, blended teaching and learning (BTL) enables the continuous delivery of education. However, the sudden transition to BTL poses challenges for students and teachers, especially for health sciences programmes that require hands-on practical experience. Several studies have evaluated F2F teaching and learning contexts through student feedback and evaluations. However, there needs to be more reliable and valid self-report questionnaires that focus on the perceptions and experiences of students experiencing BTL. This study will critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of self-report questionnaires evaluating BTL among health science university students based on their psychometric properties. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis design will be used. This review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols and follow the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) standardised guidelines. 13 databases will be searched for studies reporting BTL self-report questionnaires as evaluation tools with their respective psychometric properties. Two independent reviewers will appraise the paper using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist and the quality of evidence of the psychometric properties of the relevant questionnaires will be assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Based on their psychometric properties, these assessments will comprehensively summarise and present the best recommendations for the most appropriate self-report questionnaires for BTL evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of the Philippines' Research Grants Administration Office exempted this research protocol from ethics review evaluation (protocol number UPMREB 2022-0259-EX) since this study will not collect individual data. The research protocol was registered with PROSPERO. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences to aid researchers and professionals in the field of health education to prudently choose effective self-report questionnaires evaluating blended learning.CRD42022372362.
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.