MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7160707117 · doi:10.2196/89064

Development and usability of an e-learning tool for blended learning in pediatric endocrinology : a formative pilot study. (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W7160707117 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Farah Hrasnica, Sophie Pitteloud, Jessica Jacot, Maria Christina Antoniou, Inge Ruiz, Thérèse Bouthors, Kanetee Busiah, Sophie Stoppa‐Vaucher, Michael Hauschild

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentUsabilityBlended learningPediatric endocrinologyEducational technologyE learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Residents in pediatric endocrinology subspecialty units encounter diverse educational scenarios spanning theory, skills, and attitudes; yet, brief residencies frequently limit their exposure to certain clinical cases. Research in medical education demonstrates that e-learning can address such challenges efficiently. We implemented a blended learning model grounded in the Kolb learning cycle that uses structured, case-based e-learning. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the utility and usability of blended learning using a novel e-learning tool. Methods: We used a problem-solving approach and used the physical separation of case-based e-learning (interactive, patient scenario-based online modules) and theoretical content delivery as the educational model for residents in a pediatric endocrinology and diabetology unit. Residents worked asynchronously (on their own time, not simultaneously with others) on clinical scenarios and completed formative assessments (practice tests designed to provide feedback for learning rather than grades) with immediate feedback using a flipped classroom teaching method, in which students review material before group instruction. In addition, all cases could be discussed with specialists during face-to-face learning opportunities through a blended learning approach that combines online and in-person elements. We evaluated Kirkpatrick level 1 (reaction, how participants respond to training) and level 2 (learning, measured as an increase in knowledge or capability) outcomes using the postgraduate Medical E-learning Evaluation Survey (MEES) and the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ), which assesses users' perceptions of e-learning platforms. Results: Questionnaires from 12 pediatric residents and 1 questionnaire from a fourth-year medical student were evaluated. The main strengths identified were the tool's support for applying content to daily clinical work (12/13, 92% users), provision of timely summaries (n=9, 69% users), access to reliable information sources (n=9, 69% users), and immediate feedback on responses (n=8, 62% users). Key weaknesses included device compatibility for e-learning (n=5, 38% users), limited content personalization (n=4, 31% users), and a lack of a navigation aid (n=4, 31% users). No significant functional issues were reported. The UEQ evaluation showed that dependability received the lowest rating, while attractiveness and stimulation received the highest rating. Conclusions: Our e-learning proposal provides a practical way to apply theoretical knowledge through interactive clinical cases. Evaluations show that users are highly motivated to engage with e-learning, highlighting our tool's adaptability and effectiveness for postgraduate medical education in pediatric endocrinology. Identifying strengths and weaknesses will guide future improvements. Evaluating various aspects of e-learning remains crucial, as these aspects can affect learning outcomes. However, more longitudinal evaluations of e-learning are necessary to achieve a comprehensive understanding of its effectiveness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicSocial Media in Health Education→French-language works237,207→