ArticleGMS journal for medical education2026
Building digital bridges: Sustaining medical education in Ukraine during the war through blended online modules.
Article in GMS journal for 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The invasion of Ukraine has severely disrupted medical education. This study evaluated a blended digital intervention to support medical students and examined factors influencing students' experiences under the conditions. Methods: Two blended online modules (Medical Communication and Clinical Reasoning) were co-developed by the University of Würzburg and two Ukrainian medical universities. The modules combined asynchronous learning materials with synchronous online sessions, including simulated patients alongside case-based discussions. Displaced Ukrainian physicians contributed as instructors. A cross-sectional mixed-methods evaluation was conducted at the end of teaching using an online questionnaire with 15 Likert-scale items and open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, and regression analyses with interaction terms. Qualitative responses underwent thematic content analysis. Results: In total, 376 valid questionnaires were completed (response rate: 28.8% of 1,306 module participations). Factor analysis identified three perceived outcome dimensions: teaching quality, learning gain, and module experience. These accounted for 54% of the total variance and captured students' perceived effectiveness of the modules. Ratings were high for organisation, clarity, and interactivity, while perceived learning gain was positive but lower for compensating missing practical training. War- and infrastructure-related interruptions were negatively associated with ratings, with a significant interaction of study location indicating stronger effects in Ternopil than in Vinnytsya. Qualitative comments corroborated these findings and highlighted practical relevance, cultural adaptation, and participants' exposure to different professional practices. Conclusion: The blended online modules were positively evaluated, and represent a scalable and resilient approach to sustaining medical training in conflicts and other resource-limited contexts.
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.