Trial reportJMIR medical education2026
Blended Learning Compared With Face-to-Face Learning Among Family Medicine Residents: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The medical education of French family medicine residents involves active, socioconstructivist-inspired small-group courses useful for skill acquisition. This is challenged by the increasing gap between the growing number of residents and the limited number of teachers. Blended courses have the potential to address this issue by reducing the duration of face-to-face sessions while preserving small-group courses. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of blended vs traditional, face-to-face, active, socioconstructivist learning on the acquisition of knowledge and skills by family medicine residents. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare a blended course and a traditional course. The blended course involved 2.5 hours of asynchronous e-learning and a 3-hour face-to-face session. The traditional course involved 5.5 hours of face-to-face teaching. Both courses were grounded in socioconstructivist principles and actively engaged residents. The primary outcome was residents' self-assessment of knowledge and skills. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction with knowledge- or skill-related learning objectives and academic achievement at 6 months. Results: We included 155 family medicine residents (n=78, 50.3% in the blended course and n=77, 49.7% in the traditional course). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the primary outcome (mean difference 0.40 [maximum mean difference 20] points, 95% CI -0.21 to 1.02; P=.19; Cohen d=0.21). No significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes except for knowledge self-assessment, which was higher in the blended course but not educationally meaningful (mean difference 0.40 [maximum possible 10] points, 95% CI 0.07-0.71; P=.02; Cohen d=0.39). Conclusions: Blended courses can help sustain socioconstructivist small-group teaching methods while accommodating a growing family medicine resident population, with no deleterious impact on knowledge and skill self-assessments.
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.