ArticleBMC medical education2025
Play to learn: innovating embryology education through a web-based gamification platform, and evaluating its effects on medical students' reaction, learning, and behavior.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Go With the Flow: Visualizing Embryological Development with Concept Maps to Supplement Learning.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- The association between online learning environments and academic emotions in medical education: a controlled value theory perspective.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Outcomes of a Foundational Sciences Daily Engagement Game in Medical Education.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyArticle
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
backgroundEmbryology is often a challenging subject for medical students, leading to decreased engagement and learning difficulties. Gamification has gained attention as an innovative teaching method to enhance motivation and improve educational outcomes. This study examined the impact of gamified embryology education on medical students' reactions, learning achievements, and behaviors.
methodsA quasi-experimental study was conducted with 281 medical students at Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Iran, from 2020 to 2022. Students in 2020-2021 received conventional instruction through online lectures and electronic content, while those in 2021-2022 were taught using the same routine methods supplemented by a gamification-based platform. Data collection tools included the 18-item Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS), the 21-item Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire, and a researcher-designed Quality of Online Learning Questionnaire (Q-OLQ). Final exam scores in embryology were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21, employing descriptive statistics and Independent Samples t-tests to assess differences in academic performance.
resultsAll questionnaire components scored above the threshold, indicating positive responses. The highest satisfaction scores were found in Enjoyment (3.98 ± 1.02) and Visual Aesthetics (3.92 ± 1.04). For technology acceptance, Perceived Usefulness (4.06 ± 0.88), Concentration (3.96 ± 0.83), and Attitude towards Using (3.95 ± 0.90) were rated highly. Regarding online learning quality, Quality of Online Resources (3.95 ± 0.97) and Perceived Importance of Online Resources (3.90 ± 0.99) received the top scores. Importantly, students who experienced gamification alongside routine teaching scored significantly higher on final exams (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe findings indicate that gamification effectively enhances student engagement and learning outcomes in medical education, suggesting its valuable role as a complementary teaching strategy.
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.