Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42145719›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026

Blended learning in medical education in India-a literature-based analysis and description.

Ambuj Roy, Akanksha Pal Singh, Rashmi Ramachandran

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ambuj RoyDepartment of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Akanksha Pal SinghDepartment of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Rashmi RamachandranS.E.T (Skills, E-learning & Telemedicine) Facility, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Blended learning has gained momentum in Indian medical education and has the potential to improve access to knowledge and educational outcomes in underserved areas. Objective: This review sought to identify current BL models in Indian medical education, evaluate their impact on knowledge acquisition, engagement, and performance, and explore implementation barriers and enablers. Methodology: This structured narrative review used electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for studies on blended learning in Indian undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Fourteen eligible studies were included. The synthesis examined intervention types (e.g., flipped classrooms, e-modules), outcomes (knowledge gain, engagement, satisfaction), and implementation barriers. Most studies reported improved post-test scores and high learner satisfaction with blended learning models. Results and conclusion: Most studies reported better retention and a preference for blended formats. Students appreciated flexibility, personalized learning, and collaborative opportunities. Reported barriers included poor internet connectivity, limited access to digital devices in rural areas, and low faculty confidence in digital teaching. Faculty acknowledged the benefits of BL but highlighted the need for structured methods and training. Policy-level support, investment in digital infrastructure, and integration of learning management systems (LMS) were recognized as enabling factors.

Indexed as

blended learninge-learningflipped classroomIndian medical educationteaching/learning strategies

Identifiers

PMID42145719
PMCPMC13171311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.