ReviewBMC medical education2025
Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAMed) use in medical students: a literature review.
Review in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Teaching Acute Coronary Syndrome High-Risk ECG Interpretation and Clinical Decision-Making Through FOAMed Videos and Podcast Versus Print-Based Materials Among Emergency Care Providers: Randomized Controlled Mixed Methods Trial.JMIR medical education · 2026Trial
- Challenges and possibilities of public and patient involvement for early-career researchers: pedagogy, practice and data governance.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Digitalization and Gamification to Improve Pathology Education: The SIAPeC Quiz Experience.Pathologica · 2026Article
- Digital Anatomy: A New Frontier in Health and Medical Science Education.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFree Open Access Medical Education (FOAMed) is an emergent phenomenon within medical education. The rise of FOAMed resources has meant that medical education needs no longer be confined to the lecture theatre or the hospital setting, but rather, can be produced and shared amongst any individual or group with access to internet and a suitable device. This study presents a review of the use of FOAMed resources by students as part of their university medical education.
methodA literature search of terms relevant to the topic of FOAMed use by medical students was completed and reviewed. The included results were subsequently analysed and categorised through qualitative analysis.
resultsThe increasingly digital cohort of medical students, fitting into the Gen Z and millennial generations, are generations that have taken strongly to FOAMed resources (Toohey et al., Western J Emerg Med 337-343, 2016, Shorey et al., Nurse Educ Pract 57:103247, 2021), with many of their learning styles being applicable to the methods of study that students were faced with in the online-heavy medical curriculums due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Marshall and Wolanskyj-Spinner, Mayo Clinc Proceedings 95:1135-7, 2020). However, despite the increasing use of FOAMed resources by these students, observed university study recommendations fail to recommend or integrate these resources into the curriculum. This review presents an exploration of the use of FOAMed resources by students as part of their university medical education.
conclusionThis literature review found that students are increasingly utilising FOAMed as an integral part of their medical education, demonstrating self-determined learning. However, most of the literature on this topic is of the descriptive type, with little literature available on how universities are incorporating this form of student learning into the formal curriculum.
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.