ArticleBMC medical education2025
Comparing in-person and virtual delivery of a national ophthalmology revision course: a mixed-methods evaluation.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic prompted a rapid shift towards virtual learning. As such, the annual Duke Elder Preparatory Course pivoted to an online format using innovative teaching methods. There is a lack of prior studies directly comparing virtual to in-person delivery of the same revision course. We reviewed qualitative and quantitative student feedback across a four-year period from students who attended in-person (2019-2020, n = 103) and those who attended virtually (2020-2021, n = 215). We analysed key themes, including interactivity, attendance, and engagement, with a view to sharing key learning points with fellow educators.
methodsAn integrated didactic teaching approach was used in both the in-person and virtual cohorts, with an online platform for real-time multiple-choice questions. We evaluated student feedback from 255 attendees over a four-year period using a utilisation-focused evaluation approach.
resultsGlobal course feedback was consistently high, with a mean score of 86% for the in-person cohorts (n = 69) and 89% for the virtual cohorts (n = 186). There was a statistically significant improvement in the overall score for Content and Clarity for the virtual courses compared to the in-person courses (p < 0.005).
conclusionsThe transition to virtual teaching can be efficient and effective for the delivery of revision courses. Students benefit from the removal of geographic barriers, the ability to interact with educators via technology-enhanced learning (TEL) and the flexibility of asynchronous virtual learning. This study highlights how educators can best utilise technological advances to improve online learning, reach larger audiences and actively monitor engagement. Virtual teaching enhanced by TEL can be used in place of in-person teaching to widen access to education and improve the student experience in large-group teaching.
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.