Barriers to Online Learning in the Time of COVID-19: A National Survey of Medical Students in the Philippines

  1. Ronnie E. Baticulon
  2. Jinno Jenkin Sy
  3. Nicole Rose I. Alberto
  4. Maria Beatriz C. Baron
  5. Robert Earl C. Mabulay
  6. Lloyd Gabriel T. Rizada
  7. Christl Jan S. Tiu
  8. Charlie A. Clarion
  9. John Carlo B. Reyes

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.16.20155747: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Participation was voluntary, anonymity was guaranteed, and consent was obtained at the start of the survey.
    IRB: The University of the Philippines Manila Research Ethics Board reviewed the study protocol and issued a certificate of exemption (UPMREB 2020-281-EX).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    A significant limitation common to these studies was that the participants belonged to a single medical school. This mirrored the findings of Barteit et al. in their review of studies that evaluated e-learning interventions for medical education in developing countries [22]. They found that most studies were small-scale and had examined projects in their pilot stages; this phenomenon coined ‘pilotitis’ has hindered the development of standards for e-learning in low-resource settings. Further, research in developing countries has focused mostly on technological or contextual challenges, often failing to provide a comprehensive view or whole-system perspective [21]. It is important to identify any additional enablers and barriers, which may not have been present in the high-income countries where these teaching strategies were often developed and first evaluated. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, medical schools in the Philippines have never had to implement online learning on this massive scale. The Commission on Higher Education’s guidelines on the Doctor of Medicine program have not set standards and minimum resource requirements for remote or online learning [9,31]. This unprecedented situation presents an opportunity to critically examine the state of medical education nationwide, systematically evaluate the effectiveness of online curricula in a developing country, and formulate contingency plans for similar circumstances in the future. Our paper provides important baseline d...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.16.20155747: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementParticipation was voluntary, anonymity was guaranteed, and consent was obtained at the start of the survey.Randomizationnot detected.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variableAt a ratio of 2.2:1, females (n=2,468, 67%) outnumbered males (n=1,109, 30%).

    Table 2: Resources

    Data from additional tools added to each annotation on a weekly basis.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.16.20155747v1 on medRxiv
  5. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.16.20155747v2 on medRxiv