Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40604993›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2025

The efficacy of the BOPPPS teaching model in clinical and health education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jing Zhu, Heng Xiao, Rui Zhou, Xiaochuang Gan, Qitao Gou, Hongtao Tie

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Efficacy of Integrating Problem-Based Learning with the BOPPPS Six-Step Methodology in Endocrinology Clinical Instruction.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jing ZhuDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Immunity, Inflammation & Cancer, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Heng XiaoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Rui ZhouDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Immunity, Inflammation & Cancer, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Xiaochuang GanDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Immunity, Inflammation & Cancer, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Qitao GouDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Immunity, Inflammation & Cancer, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China.
Hongtao TieDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, 400016, Chongqing, China. ht_tie@hospital.cqmu.edu.cn.

Funding

2024 College-level Educational and Teaching Reform Research Project of the First Clinical College, Chongqing Medical University CMER202423
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBOPPPS (Bridge-in, Objective, Preassessment, Participatory learning, Post-assessment, Summary) has emerged as a compelling alternative in clinical and health education, particularly in medical and nursing education. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of BOPPPS in clinical and health education, with a primary focus on medical education, while also considering its applications in related disciplines such as nursing and health services management.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, covering studies up to May 15th, 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies involving undergraduate students in clinical and health disciplines (e.g., medicine, nursing, health services management) using BOPPPS, comparing it to traditional teaching methods, and reporting on relevant outcomes. Exclusion criteria were studies not focused on clinical and health education or without a comparison group. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies and the Jadad scale for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated using the I² statistic and Cochran's Q test. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test.

resultsA total of 146 publications were initially retrieved, with 16 studies (1198 in the BOPPPS group and 1122 in the control group) included. The pooled result revealed that BOPPPS significantly improved final examination scores (Standardized mean difference: 1.14, 95% CI 0.84-1.43; P < 0.001) compared to traditional teaching. Egger's test indicated no significant publication bias (p-value = 0.12). Additional benefits included improved student satisfaction (SMD 0.94, 95% CI 0.63-1.26; P < 0.001), classroom interaction (SMD 0.83, 95% CI 0.46-1.21; P < 0.001), and learning initiative (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.48-0.98; P < 0.001).

conclusionBOPPPS demonstrates significant potential for enhancing various dimensions of clinical and health education, including academic performance, student engagement, and satisfaction. Policymakers and educational leaders should consider integrating BOPPPS into teacher training and curriculum design to promote active learning and improve learning outcomes. However, further research is necessary to explore its effectiveness in diverse cultural and educational contexts, as well as its potential impact on developing higher-order cognitive skills like critical thinking and problem-solving skills. While these findings are generalizable to similar educational settings, caution is recommended when applying them to different cultural contexts.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalHealth EducationModels, EducationalTeachingHumansBOPPPSClinical and health educationMedical educationSystematic reviewTeaching strategy

Identifiers

PMID40604993
PMCPMC12224838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.