ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Effectiveness of a "5E+AI" teaching model on science communication in medical students: a contribution to global health literacy.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
Background: The improvement of global health literacy depends on health professionals having effective public science communication capabilities. However, worldwide, medical education systems still largely lack training in science communication for medical students. How to construct a systematic and scalable model for cultivating scientific communication capabilities is a key issue currently faced by the reform of medical education. Objective: Our study aims to evaluate the effect of the "5E+AI" teaching model on the cultivation of medical students' science communication capabilities, and to assess the impact of this model on students' learning participation, acquisition of medical knowledge, and creation of popular science works. Methods: A historical controlled quasi-experimental design was employed. Twenty-nine medical students enrolled in the "Fundamentals and Practice of Medical Science Popularization" course at Sun Yat-sen University during the 2025-1 semester served as the historical control group (receiving lecture-based, instructor-centered teaching with PowerPoint presentations and group discussions, but without AI-assisted tools), while 28 students enrolled in the same course during the 2025-2 semester served as the experimental group (receiving the "5E+AI" teaching model). The two groups are the same in terms of teaching content, total class hours, teachers, teaching materials, assessment methods, etc. The evaluation indicators include participation score, medical knowledge test score, final score of the science communication project and student self-report questionnaire. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney Results: The experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group on all three primary outcome measures: participation scores (median 85.00 vs. 80.00, Conclusions: The "5E+AI" teaching model helps enhance medical students' classroom participation, ability to acquire medical knowledge and science communication skills. In this teaching model, artificial intelligence can help students address the issues of knowledge deficiency and resource constraints. Meanwhile, the 5E teaching framework provides students with structured teaching scenarios. Together, they enhance teaching effectiveness and offer replicable and adaptable local solutions for the reform of medical communication education in the context of global health literacy promotion.
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.