ArticleJMIR medical education2026
Disaster Medicine Training for Medical Students in Lebanon: Quasi-Experimental Comparison of e-Learning and Face-to-Face Modalities.
Article in JMIR 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite global advocacy for its integration into medical curricula, disaster medicine (DM) education remains underdeveloped, especially in fragile settings where such training is urgently needed. In Lebanon, a country facing political and economic crises, students face significant barriers to in-person education.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of e-learning versus face-to-face (F2F) approaches in improving knowledge retention and provides insight into the practical considerations of implementing DM courses in such settings.
methodsThis quasi-experimental study used a Solomon 4-group design to evaluate e-learning and F2F DM courses for second- to fifth-year medical students at the Lebanese University. A total of 205 participants, stratified by academic year, were divided between the 2 modalities. Knowledge was assessed before the course, after the course, and at 1-month follow-up. Confidence, competency, and satisfaction were evaluated after the course using validated tools.
resultsOf 205 participants, 56.6% (n=116) favored e-learning. Both modalities improved knowledge and knowledge retention, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. Fifth-year students achieved the highest gains in knowledge, particularly in the e-learning group. Similarly, no significant difference in satisfaction was observed across modalities, although F2F was preferred overall, except among fifth-year students, who preferred e-learning. Confidence levels were also similar across both modalities, but F2F scored higher for skills like triaging. Feedback emphasized the relevance of the course and advocated for integration of DM into the medical curriculum, and adding practical sessions.
conclusionsIntegrating DM education into the fifth-year curriculum, prior to externship, can enhance preparedness and promote knowledge retention and application in real-world disaster settings. The study shows that e-learning is an effective modality for improving knowledge acquisition and retention in DM. Although feasibility and efficiency were not measured directly, the successful delivery of the course to geographically dispersed students suggests potential practical advantages. Combining F2F practical sessions for specific targeted topics in a blended curriculum is recommended to further enhance medical students' confidence for future disaster response. These findings support broader policy efforts to institutionalize DM in medical curricula, particularly in fragile and resource-limited settings.
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.