ArticleBMC medical education2025
Understanding how medical students learn in the era of artificial intelligence: a mixed methods study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence readiness in Pakistan's medical and dental education: training-phase decline, a knowledge-practice paradox, and the role of digital determinants of health.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Mapping the research landscape of virtual reality and artificial intelligence in medical education evaluation: A bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Implementing digital-supported team-based learning for large undergraduate cohort in a resource-limited setting: a pilot study developed through an international academic partnership.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Facilitators' perspectives on a pre-matriculation program in basic biomedical sciences for medical students: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs medical education evolves, current teaching practices often remain misaligned with how today's digitally native students prefer to learn. While the use of digital tools is widespread, there is limited clarity on students' learning behaviors, particularly their preferences for self-paced, assessment-driven, and technology-supported strategies. This study explores these patterns using a mixed-methods approach to inform more responsive medical curricula.
methodsA mixed-methods, cross-sectional study was conducted among undergraduate medical students (n = 432) from three universities in the UAE and Jordan. A 23-item questionnaire, developed through literature review and expert validation, included both quantitative and qualitative components. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) were used to establish construct validity. Free-text responses were analyzed using thematic analysis to complement and contextualize the quantitative findings.
resultsCFA supported a five-factor, 17-item structure with good model fit (χ² = 180.02, df = 102, χ²/df = 1.77, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.053). The identified dimensions were: self-paced learning, exam-oriented learning, partnership in learning, collaborative learning, and AI-enhanced learning. Thematic analysis of 218 qualitative responses revealed eight key themes: flexible learning options, enhanced formative assessment, active teaching, study skills development, collaborative learning, use of technology, clinically focused learning, and resource accessibility. These qualitative themes reinforced and expanded upon the quantitative constructs.
conclusionsMedical students in the AI era adopt a complex, multidimensional approach to learning that is personalized, flexible, and technology driven. The convergence of quantitative and qualitative data underscores the urgent need to align curricula with students' preferences by promoting self-regulated, interactive, and AI-enhanced learning environments. These findings have critical implications for faculty development, curriculum reform, teaching, student assessment, and the future of learner-centered medical 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.