ArticleMedical science educator2026
Mixed method evaluation of a novel seminar format for a PBL-based integrated curriculum.
Article in Medical science educator, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical students in the early preclinical years may find the depth of knowledge demanded for basic and clinical sciences challenging. Self-directed learning however necessitates identifying the depth of knowledge required. While multimedia depiction of the sciences may enhance learning, they are not tailored to the learning objectives for any given year curriculum. This study explored students' experiences of a modified seminar format learning called "nCuSP". It encapsulated a flexible blended learning experience using digital technology, and provided specific content to meet learning objectives. A mixed methodology was used. The first quantitative phase measured participants' experiences of nCuSP and usual seminars. The second qualitative phase used focus group discussions to probe participants' learning experiences. There were 356 responses from first- and second-year students. Their consensus was that the nCuSP format led to improved overall learning (80.1% vs. 19.9%). When contrasted with usual seminars, nCuSP led to better understanding of key concepts (67.550 Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-026-02708-5.
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.