Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41345643›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

An exploration of instructional design for graduate education system in biomedical science: a mixedmethod design.

Minji Kim, Cheolil Lim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Minji KimLearning Sciences Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. minjikim1124@snu.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-7826-2728
Cheolil LimDepartment of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. chlim@snu.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8592-8446

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiomedical graduate education requires systematic reform, as traditional lecture-based approaches do not meet the interdisciplinary and clinically oriented demands of the field. This study aims to develop the education systems in biomedical science using the RPISD to design a data-driven aligned with the needs of learners and instructors.

methodsA comprehensive literature review, current state analysis, and relevant case analysis were conducted. Additionally, 100 learner surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and 36 learner and 15 instructor interviews were examined through thematic analysis. A usability test was also performed in alignment with the RPISD phases to validate the framework.

resultsThe study identified 12 educational principles and 18 strategies for the Department of Biomedical Sciences. Specifically, six educational principles and seven educational strategies were developed with respect to the curriculum, four educational principles and five educational strategies in regard to teaching methods, and four educational principles and six educational strategies in relation to the educational environment.

conclusionThis framework contributes to higher education by offering a structured model that differs from existing approaches through its emphasis on contextual adaptability and learner-centered design. It provides guidelines for institutions seeking to reform or improve their graduate education systems.

Indexed as

Biological Science DisciplinesCurriculumEducation, GraduateEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansModels, EducationalSurveys and QuestionnairesTeachingBiomedical science educationEducation systemInstructional designMixed methodRPISD model

Identifiers

PMID41345643
PMCPMC12781573

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.