ArticleBMC medical education2026
Medical student's perceptions of modern educational technologies in anatomy at VinUniversity, Vietnam: a cross-sectional 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModern digital tools are increasingly used in anatomy education, yet evidence from low- and middle-income settings on how students perceive the usefulness of these resources remains limited. Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model, this study explored medical students’ perceptions of the usefulness of high investment, technology enhanced tools versus standard anatomy teaching tools and examined how socioeconomic and educational backgrounds relate to these perceptions.
methodsA cross-sectional mixed methods survey was conducted among three cohorts of medical students who had completed a two-semester anatomy course at VinUniversity, Hanoi, Vietnam. A self-designed questionnaire asked students to rate the perceived usefulness of four high investment tools (3D anatomy application, plastinated models, virtual dissection table, advanced plastic models) and four standard tools (atlases and textbooks, Canvas platform, laboratory printouts, online resources) on a 5-point Likert scale. Demographic and academic variables included cohort, gender, hometown, high school type, grade point average, family income, and intended surgical versus non-surgical career. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and appropriate parametric or non-parametric tests with p < 0.05. Open ended responses were analyzed through qualitative descriptive thematic analysis.
resultsOut of 144 invited students, 131 responded (91% response rate). The analysis revealed that high investment educational tools, particularly the 3D Anatomy App (4.39 ± 0.84) and plastinated models (3.91 ± 1.03), received high satisfaction ratings. Urban students and those from prestigious high schools rated these tools significantly higher (p = 0.045). The virtual dissection table had mixed reviews (2.92 ± 1.15), with better reception in later cohorts (p = 0.058). Family income influenced perceptions, with higher income groups rating the 3D Anatomy App (p = 0.006) and the virtual dissection table (p = 0.039) more favorably. Qualitative feedback highlighted the need for interactive tools, practical resources, clinical integration, better labeling, and language support.
conclusionsMedical students perceived selected modern anatomy tools, particularly the 3D anatomy application and plastinated models, as especially useful in supporting their learning, but these perceptions varied systematically by socioeconomic background and career intentions. The findings support targeted investment in high value tools, coupled with faculty development, better labeling and localization of resources, and more explicit clinical integration, in order to promote both educational quality and equity. Longitudinal and multi-institutional studies, together with cost effectiveness analyses, are needed to determine how these implementation strategies influence long term learning outcomes and guide future resource allocation in similar 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.