BackgroundCOVID-19 pandemic forced educational institutions to adopt online methods which were inevitable to keep continuity of education across all academia after suspension of traditional educational systems. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of faculty and students of online and face-to-face learning, and their preference of the mode of learning after the pandemic.MethodsThis is a mixed-method study. Quantitative data was collected through a survey from 194 medical students and 33 faculty members, while qualitative data was collected through two focus group discussions with 9 students and another two with 13 faculty members. Quantitative variables were presented as means and standard deviations. Paired samples t-test and Chi-square test were used. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was used to code, interpret, and make sense of data.ResultsMean scores of responses of faculty members and students were higher for face-to-face and blended learning compared to online learning in all survey statements with statistically significant differences. More than half of the students (53.1%) preferred the face-to-face mode of learning, while most of the faculty members (60.6%) preferred the blended mode of learning. Qualitative analysis identified five themes, namely: “Transforming the way theoretical teaching sessions are given,” “Face-to-face teaching at campus cannot be replaced for some types of education,” “Interaction in online sessions is limited,” “Problems and challenges of online examinations,” and “Technical issues and challenges of online education.” It revealed suggestions that at least 30% of the curriculum could be taught online post-COVID-19. Some aspects of clinically oriented teaching including history taking and case discussions can also be delivered online in the future. Faculty members and students reported that dealing with online education was not difficult, although the transition was not smooth.ConclusionMedical students and faculty members were in favor of face-to-face and blended modes of learning. However, they perceived online mode of learning as an acceptable adaptation in theoretical teaching and in some clinically oriented teaching including history taking and clinical case discussions. Although face-to-face education in medicine is irreplaceable, the blended mode of learning remains an acceptable and practical solution for the post-COVID era.

No abstract

Objective To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 questionnaires. Materials and Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out. A total of 337 subjects were recruited from the Oncology Centre in Bahrain and 239 consented to participation. The European Organization for Research and Treatment-QOL questionnaire and breast cancer–specific module (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23) were used to measure the HRQOL among women with breast cancer. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS Version 20. The reliability of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires was examined using Cronbach’s alpha test. The construct validity of both questionnaires was tested using the exploratory factor analysis. Results Exploratory factor analysis results of EORTC QLQ-C30 showed that Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.878 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is <0.001. The extracted four-factor model explained 51.52% of the total variance. Relating to EORTC-QLQ-BR23, the KMO value was 0.735 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity showed a significance of p<0.001 and extracted a three-factor model which explained a total variance of 46.05%. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient results for EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ BR-23 were 0.927and 0.844 respectively which reflects high internal consistency. Conclusion The EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires are feasible and promising instruments to measure the levels of HRQOL among Arabic-speaking women with breast cancer in future studies with some suggested modifications in some of the domains or items.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced educational institutions to adopt online methods which were inevitable to keep the continuity of education across all academia after the suspension of traditional educational systems. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of faculty and students of online learning and their preference of the mode of learning after the pandemic.Methods: This is a mixed-method study that encompassed a quantitative component (researcher-made survey consisting of 22 items under three domains) and a qualitative component (focus group discussions). Quantitative data analysis was done, and quantitative variables were presented as means and standard deviations. Paired samples t-test and Chi-square test were used. A p-value ˂ 0.05 was considered as a cut-off point of statistical significance. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was used to code, interpret, and make sense of the data. Results: The mean scores of responses of faculty members and students were in favor of face-to-face and blended learning compared to online learning in all survey items with a statistically significant difference. More than half of the students preferred the face-to-face mode of learning, while most of the faculty preferred the blended mode of learning.Qualitative analysis identified five themes and revealed suggestions that at least 30% of the curriculum could be taught online post-COVID-19. Some aspects of clinically oriented teaching including history taking and case discussions can also be delivered online in the future. Faculty members and students reported that dealing with online education was not difficult, although the transition was not smooth. Conclusion: The study revealed that although online learning is the possible educational adaptation during the pandemic, medical students and faculty still prefer face-to-face and blended modes of learning for their higher benefits.

Background: Numerous studies have revealed that nursing students perceive lack of confidence as one of the key barriers to performing physical examination; however, it is not empirically measured. This study aimed to test the psychometric properties of the Physical Examination Perceived Self-Efficacy Instrument. Method: The study included three phases: in Phase 1, 51 items were constructed; in Phase 2, 7 field experts rated items for relevancy; and in Phase 3, the instrument was piloted to a convenience sample of 238 students. Results: The analysis yielded six factors with a factor loading >0.40. The corrected item-total correlation ranged from 0.6 to 0.87. Cronbach's alpha ranged from .84 to .98. The interscale correlation of the instrument was statistically significant ( p < .001). Conclusion: We found that the instrument is a psychometrically robust measure of self-efficacy of performing physical examination. The instrument could provide a better understanding of the association between perceived self-efficacy and students' academic performance. [ J Nurs Educ . 2022;61(1):36–40.]