ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Evaluation of the participatory rural appraisal training-hands-on for medical (PRATHaM) students.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Training in conventional community medicine often relies on didactic lectures and limited community engagement, which may not adequately improve understanding of students of contextual sociocultural and health-related problems. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is an effective and efficient approach to deliver community-based education. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the Participatory Rural Appraisal Training - Hands-on for Medical (PRATHaM) program for the first-year undergraduate medical students by assessing knowledge acquisition and obtaining feedback from students, faculty members, and community stakeholders. Methods: It was a quasi-experimental study with a one-group pretest-posttest study design conducted among first-year undergraduate medical students in a medical college. The study employed total sampling, in which 250 students were enrolled, and data from 245 completers were analyzed. Study was carried out in two stages, namely training of students in PRA methods in classroom, followed by implementation of the same in the community by the trained students. At each stage, students were asked to provide feedback on different aspects of the training, and feedback was obtained from the community as well. Two tools were used to measure feedback from the community, namely observation of students' interaction in the community and feedback from community about their interactions with medical students. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained prior to the start of the study and students were assured that the study will not have any impact on academics. The statistical analysis was done using descriptive and inferential (paired Results: A total of 245 students with a mean age of 20 ± 2.3 years were trained in PRA methods (remaining five were absent). Out of a maximum score of 10, there was a significant improvement in the mean score of students in the post-test (8.80 ± 1.01), when compared with the mean scores in the pre-test (3.47 ± 1.06), and this difference was found to be highly statistically significant ( Conclusion: In conclusion, the training imparted to medical students on selected PRA methods brought about a statistically significant improvement in the knowledge of medical students. The findings suggest that PRA-based training is an effective approach for improving medical students' knowledge and community engagement skills and supports its integration into undergraduate community medicine curriculum to strengthen community-based learning experiences.
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.