ArticleIrish journal of medical science2025
Evaluation of a hybrid model of a Physician Associate Studies programme: students, teachers, and examiner perspectives.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo date, there is one university offering the Physician Associate (PA) Studies programme in Ireland. Responding to a demand for PAs outside of Dublin, a hybrid model was introduced, allowing students undertake the didactic phase of the programme online for synchronous instruction, attending campus twice a month for anatomy learning, clinical skills, and integration sessions.
aimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate the hybrid model from the perspectives of students and their teachers, including the external examiner.
methodsThis was a mixed methods study, using surveys (n = 15), focus groups with students (n = 10), teaching staff (n = 4), and a one-to-one interview with an external examiner. Action points of programme board meetings were also analysed.
resultsWhile attitudes to online learning were positive, the need for improvements was highlighted. During online teaching sessions, the students expressed the need to feel more a part of the traditional classroom experience. Even though lecturers were aware of students online, some found it difficult to engage with these students. Clinical teachers did not detect any differences between hybrid and on-campus students on their clinical application to practice.
conclusionFindings suggest that hybrid learning is influenced by previous online learning experiences. Students admitted to a feeling of social isolation at times and the reminder for faculty to support an inclusive environment. Student performance showed that hybrid students did as well or better across both years of the programme, and this translated into clinical practice too.
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.