ArticleBMC medical education2026
Development and evaluation of 'Learning-Bytes': a mixed methods study of e-learning modules for clinical educator development in allied health professions.
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
Abstract
introductionThe growing demand for student clinical placements has led to increased reliance on clinician educators, many of whom have limited teaching experience. To support these educators effectively, professional development must be tailored to their educational needs and accessibility requirements.
methodsA convergent mixed‑methods design was used to develop, trial, and evaluate Learning‑Bytes, a suite of five e‑learning modules for clinical educators. The program was co‑designed with an expert reference group and informed by self‑determination theory and the ADDIE instructional design model to ensure relevance, accessibility, and usability. Program evaluation was guided by the Kirkpatrick Model and incorporated quantitative and qualitative data from surveys (Additional File 2) and focus groups to assess usability and impact on clinical educators' knowledge, confidence, perceived competence, and behaviours over 12 months. Reporting aligns with the GRAMMS (Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study) framework. Clinician educators supervising allied health professional students at our university were eligible to participate. Data analysis included descriptive statistics for quantitative data, traditional content analysis, and inductive thematic analysis for qualitative data. Following threads of key findings through iterative team discussions, an integrated report of findings related to each aim was produced.
resultsOf 123 participants who enrolled in Learning-Bytes, 64 completed all five Learning-Bytes modules and 32 responded to both enrolment and endpoint surveys. Usability feedback was provided by 49 participants, and 13 attended focus groups. Post-program surveys were completed by 13 participants at six months and 7 at twelve months. Across all timepoints, improvements were observed in knowledge, confidence, competence, and behaviour. Integration of qualitative and qualitative analysis revealed that the program positively influenced educator attributes and practices, encouraged behavioural change, and showed potential to enhance student learning experiences. DISCUSSION: Learning-Bytes meets a clear need supporting novice clinical educators feel more confident, competent, and capable in their roles. Flexible, relevant professional development is essential to sustaining a high-quality clinical education workforce amid growing placement demands. The program's modular structure and rigorous design ensure adaptability to evolving educational needs. Findings suggest that Learning-Bytes not only supports individual educator growth but also showed potential to enhance the student learning experience.
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.