ArticleAnatomical sciences education2025
Introducing the contextual digital divide: Insights from microscopic anatomy on usage behavior and effectiveness of digital versus face-to-face learning.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. 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.
- Beyond tumor biology: nursing interventions for psychological and immune health in cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Review
- Blended and digital approaches in histology and pathology teaching: A scoping review.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- The Presence and Nature of AI-Use Disclosure Statements in Medical Education Journals: A Bibliometric Study.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- AI-powered platform revolutionizing blood cell morphology education for medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Introducing the contextual digital divide: Insights from microscopic anatomy on usage behavior and effectiveness of digital versus face-to-face learning.Anatomical sciences education · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a growing trend toward the digitization of education, highlighting the need to understand how different learning modalities impact medical student outcomes. This study analyzes user behavior among medical students in Microscopic Anatomy, focusing on preferences for digital versus face-to-face guided self-study. A cohort of 684 students participated in Microscopic Anatomy courses, choosing between digital and face-to-face guided self-study sessions. Student participation was systematically tracked, capturing detailed data on the frequency and duration of engagement with each self-study modality. Quantitative measures of academic performance were collected, and user behavior was analyzed to identify trends in learning outcomes. The majority preferred face-to-face sessions, with attendance increasing over the semester. By the end, 78.44% found hands-on engagement with microscopes more effective and engaging than digital alternatives. Students attending in-person sessions achieved superior academic outcomes, with a failure rate of 13.69% compared to 22.04% among nonattendees. Preferences were influenced by direct tutor interactions (61.38%) and peer engagement during free microscopy sessions (74.25%). Additionally, 46.71% reported higher motivation when studying in the histology lecture hall compared to at home. These findings reveal a 'Contextual Digital Divide', where digital learning may not fully meet educational needs in contexts requiring hands-on experiences and direct interaction. Our results highlight the need to reinforce face-to-face teaching in specific contexts to ensure an effective learning experience. Future research should build on these insights to better understand situations where digital methods may fall short of learners' needs.
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.