ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Comparison of Academic Performance and Preference for Teaching Modality Among Health Professions Students Taught Physiology Modules in the Rwandan Public University.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While online learning offers flexibility and expanded access to educational resources, concerns remain regarding its ability to support the complex conceptual understanding required in physiology education. We compared academic performance and preferences for teaching modality among undergraduate health professions students at University of Rwanda (UR). Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study using historical cohorts was conducted among undergraduate students enrolled in Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, and Clinical Psychology programmes at UR. Academic performance data from students who completed physiology modules during online teaching (2020-2021) were compared with those from students who completed equivalent modules during face-to-face teaching (2022 onward). Mean Assessment Scores (MAS) obtained from official academic records were analysed using factorial analysis of covariance, adjusting for sex and programme. Student preferences regarding teaching modality were assessed using a structured questionnaire and analysed using logistic regression models. Results: A total of 528 students participated in the preference survey, while 516 students were included in MAS analysis. Overall, teaching modality was not significantly associated with MAS after adjustment for sex and programme (p=0.349). However, a significant interaction between teaching modality and academic programme was observed (p<0.001). Online teaching was associated with higher adjusted scores among medical students, whereas face-to-face teaching was associated with higher adjusted scores among dental students. No significant difference was observed among pharmacy students. Most students preferred face-to-face teaching, although preferences varied across programmes. Conclusion: Academic performance in physiology did not differ substantially across teaching modalities after adjustment for programme and sex. However, the association between teaching modality and performance varied across academic programmes, suggesting that programme context may influence how students benefit from different instructional approaches. Most students preferred face-to-face learning despite comparable overall academic outcomes. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because the comparison involved non-contemporaneous historical cohorts exposed to different educational, assessment, and contextual conditions.
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.