ArticleBMC medical education2026
Integration of exercise and sports medicine curriculum in China: a structured pilot course evaluation conducted among medical students.
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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of sports and exercise medicine curriculum (SEMc) including physical activity promotion and exercise prescription competencies into medical curricula is increasingly recognised within health profession education (HPE), yet evidence of its educational impact remains limited. This study evaluated the effects of a structured SEMc on medical students' knowledge, skills, confidence, and attitudes in exercise prescription.
methodsMedical students (n = 10) completed a 4-week SEMc on the basis of international frameworks and China's national guidelines; controls (n = 14) received no training. All participants completed baseline and post-course knowledge tests and a course-developed questionnaire with high internal consistency.The outcomes were analysed via repeated-measures ANOVA and t tests.
resultsParticipation in the SEMc significantly enhanced medical students' competency in exercise prescription. Students who received training demonstrated substantial gains in knowledge, with scores improving from baseline and exceeding those of controls at post-assessment (95.2 ± 3.3 vs. 66.6 ± 17.1; p < 0.001). Improvements were sustained at the one-month follow-up, despite a slight decline from the immediate post-test (p = 0.041). The questionnaire data supported these findings, showing significant increases in skills (3.43 ± 0.67 to 4.18 ± 0.54; p = 0.030) and confidence (3.52 ± 0.55 to 4.07 ± 0.58; p = 0.046). Motivation remained consistently high (p = 0.290), and self-perceived knowledge did not change significantly (p = 0.170). Students not participating in the SEMc showed no notable changes (p > 0.10). At post-intervention, the SEMc group scored higher than controls in knowledge (p = 0.020), skills (p < 0.001), and confidence (p = 0.002).
conclusionIn this quasi-experimental pilot study, a brief, structured SEMc was associated with improvements in medical students' exercise prescription-related knowledge, skills, and confidence. Embedding SEMc into mainstream curricula may equip future physicians with essential capacities for chronic disease prevention, aligning with the WHO's Global Action Plan on Physical Activity.
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.