ArticleBMC medical education2026
Blended peer-led research curriculum with AI integration improves postgraduate students' academic performance and satisfaction: a quasi-experimental mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch methods courses in health professions education are often perceived as abstract, didactic, and disconnected from practice, resulting in low engagement and limited skill transfer. Innovative pedagogies that integrate flipped learning, peer critique, and artificial intelligence (AI) may enhance learning but remain underexplored in postgraduate dental education. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a blended, peer-led, AI-integrated research methods curriculum compared with a traditional lecture-based approach.
methodsA quasi-experimental mixed-methods study was conducted during the Winter–Summer 2025 semester at the Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University. First-year postgraduate dental students enrolled in a research methods course were assigned to either an intervention group (n = 26) that received a blended curriculum incorporating flipped video lectures, gamified peer critiques, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)-based appraisals, faculty-led discussions, AI-assisted feedback, and proposal development, or a control group (n = 26) receiving traditional lectures. Quantitative outcomes included academic performance, critique score, and student satisfaction (Likert survey). Qualitative data were collected through focus groups and reflective responses, analyzed thematically.
resultsIntervention students reported significantly higher overall satisfaction than the control group (Mean ± SD: 4.35 ± 1.56 vs. 3.35 ± 1.89; p = 0.043; 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.94). Differences in critique scores (9.23 ± 1.12 vs. 8.77 ± 0.96) and total academic performance (92.21 ± 18.50 vs. 85.50 ± 22.30) favored the intervention group but did not reach statistical significance. Satisfaction was moderately correlated with academic performance (around r ~ 0.6 in both groups, p < 0.001). Qualitative findings provided explanatory insight into these patterns, highlighting perceived clarity of course organization, active and collaborative learning, and improved preparedness for thesis work, alongside challenges related to workload intensity and course logistics.
conclusionsA blended, peer-led, AI-integrated research methods curriculum was associated with higher student satisfaction and more positive learning experiences compared with traditional lectures, while performance differences were modest. Mixed-methods integration revealed how engagement, structure, and perceived relevance shaped learning beyond what quantitative measures alone captured. Although resource-intensive, this model offers a promising framework for enhancing postgraduate research methods education. Further multi-institutional and longitudinal studies are needed to examine sustainability and generalizability.
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.