ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2024
Evaluating Blended Teaching Models in Medical Colleges: Preferences and Influential Factors for Teachers and Students.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research topic-driven curriculum content reform in graduate immunology to strengthen students' research and innovation competence.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- An Interactive Learning to Increase the Knowledge of Sexual and Reproductive Health Among University Students: A Pilot Study in West Java, Indonesia.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Medical education in Obstetrics and Gynecology: preferences of medical students regarding digital 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluates the adoption of blended teaching models by faculty and students at Hubei University of Medicine. It aims to assess their willingness to adopt hybrid learning and identify the factors influencing their choices. The goal is to provide a theoretical foundation for reforming teaching models. Methods: We distributed questionnaires to 235 faculty members and 1501 students at Hubei Medical College to assess their preferences for various teaching models. We analyzed the results using multiple logistic regression analysis. Results: Among the participants, 34.5% of teachers and 33.7% of students preferred the hybrid teaching model. Influential factors for selecting this model included the quality of online teaching (OR=1.601, 95% CI: 1.221-2.100) and teacher-student interaction (OR=2.568, 95% CI: 1.230-5.361) for teachers. For students, significant factors included online learning tools (OR=1.894, 95% CI: 1.002-3.580), a single teaching method (OR=1.390, 95% CI: 1.042-1.856), low learning efficiency (OR=2.154, 95% CI: 1.673-2.774), and the effectiveness of online learning (OR=1.257, 95% CI: 1.181-1.339). Conclusion: The blended teaching model has gained popularity among faculty and students in higher education. Universities should leverage advancements in information technology to address challenges in hybrid teaching. Maximizing students' sense of academic achievement and satisfaction is recommended to enhance and support the blended teaching approach.
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.