ArticleMedical science educator2025
Electronic Peer-Assisted Reflection in Educational Discussion Boards: A Content Analysis of Medical and Health Students' Opinions in Psychology-Related Courses.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Introduction: Reflection is a critical cognitive process that involves thinking deeply about experiences, actions, or concepts to gain insights and enhance learning. Online collaborative environments, such as forums, facilitate peer learning and reflection on educational experiences. This study aimed to analyze medical students' opinions on electronic Peer-Assisted Reflection (ePAR) in an educational forum focused on psychology-related courses. Methods: This qualitative study utilized content analysis methods. The sample consisted of opinions gathered across 16 forums encompassing a total of 389 students specializing in medicine, laboratory science, and public health at Jahrom University of Medical Sciences (JUMS), IRAN. The instructor delivered the courses to the class and posed questions based on the discussion forum within the Learning Management System. Following each course, students' experiences regarding discussions and question-and-answer sessions were assessed in a forum setting. The data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results: A content analysis of the data obtained from students' opinions yielded 51 codes (items), which were classified into two main categories: effectiveness and setting. The most significant factors were effectiveness (Including: Thinking, Peer-Assisted Learning, Active Learning, and Self-Critique) and setting (Environment, Teachers, and Students). The open codes (items) most frequently mentioned by students included the potential to correct inaccurate interpretations of others' learning experiences and misconceptions (94 mentions), improving students' ability to compare and analyze (93 mentions), promoting and strengthening criticism and analysis (93 mentions), and fostering active and deep learning (92 mentions). Conclusion: The forum environment can enhance participation, active learning, and critical thinking among students while providing a rich educational context for medical education. Therefore, utilizing this method in education without time or place constraints can be a practical approach to improving medical science education.
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.