Online learning has become the new normal in many medical and health science schools worldwide, courtesy of COVID-19. Satisfaction with online learning is a significant aspect of promoting successful educational processes. This study aimed to identify factors affecting student and faculty satisfaction with online learning during the new normal. Online questionnaires were emailed to students (n = 370) and faculty (n = 81) involved in online learning during the pandemic. The questionnaires included closed-and open-ended questions and were organised into two parts: socio-demographic information and satisfaction with online learning. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the responses to the satisfaction scales. Students' and faculty responses to the open-ended questions were analysed using the thematic analysis method. The response rate was 97.8% for students and 86.4% for faculty. Overall satisfaction among students was 41.3% compared to 74.3% for faculty. The highest areas of satisfaction for students were communication and flexibility, whereas 92.9% of faculty were satisfied with students' enthusiasm for online learning. Technical problems led to reduced student satisfaction, while faculty were hampered by the higher workload and the required time to prepare the teaching and assessment materials. Study-load and workload, enhancing engagement, and technical issues (SWEET) were the themes that emerged from the thematic analysis as affecting student and faculty satisfaction. Adopting a combination synchronous and asynchronous approach, incorporating different applications to engage students, and timely feedback are imperative to increasing student satisfaction, while institutional support and organisational policy could enhance faculty satisfaction.

The spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) has led the majority of countries worldwide to implement emergency lockdown plans to limit the spread of the virus; this has resulted in the interruption of on-campus school and university instruction. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in medical education have varied from country to country, from closures of medical schools to online/distance learning approaches to abiding by country-specific measures such as social distancing to stop the spread of the disease. The sudden transition from on-campus learning to exclusively distance learning is challenging for both faculty and students and has required a lot of preparation and other efforts in a short time. This paper aims to share the experiences of four authors in the middle east that have dealt with the sudden transition from ordinary teaching and learning to fully online teaching. The process of Curriculum delivery in Medical Education during an emergency has included; establishing a sense of urgency, establishing working teams, conducting needs assessments, developing implementation plans, communicating the curriculum content, capacity building, managing students' stress, finding tools to be used, managing student engagement and motivation, student assessment, anticipating challenges and planning for how to overcome them, and monitoring and evaluation of curriculum implementation and continuous improvement. The proposed process will hopefully assist the medical schools in response to the current pandemic (COVID-19) and when facing similar situations.

Context High‐quality research into education costs can inform better decision making. Improvements to cost research can be guided by information about the research questions, methods and reporting of studies evaluating costs in health professions education (HPE). Our objective was to appraise the overall state of the field and evaluate temporal trends in the methods and reporting quality of cost evaluations in HPE research. Methods We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), EMBASE, Business Source Complete and ERIC (Education Resources Information Centre) databases on 31 July 2017. To evaluate trends over time, we sampled research reports at 5‐year intervals (2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016). All original research studies in HPE that reported a cost outcome were included. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the BMJ economic checklist were used to appraise methodological and reporting quality, respectively. Trends in quality over time were analysed. Results A total of 78 studies were included, of which 16 were published in 2001, 15 in 2006, 20 in 2011 and 27 in 2016. The region most commonly represented was the USA (n = 43). The profession most commonly referred to was that of the physician (n = 46). The mean ± standard deviation (SD) MERSQI score was 10.9 ± 2.6 out of 18, with no significant change over time (p = 0.55). The mean ± SD BMJ score was 13.5 ± 7.1 out of 35, with no significant change over time (p = 0.39). A total of 49 (63%) studies stated a cost‐related research question, 23 (29%) stated the type of cost evaluation used, and 31 (40%) described the method of estimating resource quantities and unit costs. A total of 16 studies compared two or more interventions and reported both cost and learning outcomes. Conclusions The absolute number of cost evaluations in HPE is increasing. However, there are shortcomings in the quality of methodology and reporting, and these are not improving over time.

Background:Students’ opinions about their medical curriculum is essential process for evaluating program strength and weakness. Aim: We aimed to assess the benefits and effectiveness of PBL in acquisition of knowledge and soft skills during basic (Phase I) and preclinical (Phase II) sciences.Methods:Across-sectional study was conducted at the University of Bisha, College of Medicine, Saudi Arabia. Students at Phase I and Phase II were involved. A validated self-administered questionnaire used for data collection. Responses to the questionnaire items regarding PBL benefits, preferences and effectiveness in acquisition of knowledge and soft skills were ordinal following a four-point Likert scale format. Independent and paired t tests were used to compare between the means and SD of each two variables. A p value ≤ 0.05 considered as statistically significant.Results:Most of students (86.3%) reported a positive perception on all the items assessing the benefits of PBL approach. Students’ responses on PBL relating to the acquisition of knowledge (3.27±0.46) and soft skill (3.32±0.45) were high. There were no significant differences determined in the mean score and SD of acquisition of knowledge (p=0.768) and soft skills (p=0.297) between second and third year students. PBL was preferred in Phase II comparable to Phase I modules (3.371±0.299 vs. 3.026±0.627; p=0.001).Conclusion:Effectiveness of PBL found to be high and increasing after taking a series of modules. Although PBL methodology has impact in acquisition of knowledge and skills, intended program outcome should be determined to assess the effects of PBL.

Background Medical students encounter various stressors during their studies. The study aimed to assess stress levels, sources, and associated determinants among Sudanese medical students. An online questionnaire-based study was conducted among 617 undergraduate medical students of 6 different universities in Sudan. A 19-item questionnaire was utilized to assess stress sources, in addition to demographics, stress manifestations, and coping strategies. Results The overall prevalence of stress was 31.7% (p < 0.01). The main sources of stress were time pressure, heavy workload, fear of failure, and examination frequency. One-third of students indicated that they experienced at least one source of psychosocial- and teaching-related stress. Female medical students were more significantly stressed due to academics than males. Also, fourth- and fifth-year students were academically more stressed in comparison to the first-year students. Poisson regression analysis model showed that first-year students were less stressed than the final-year students in relation to academics (odds = 0.888, P = 0.003). Male medical students, across all study years, were far less stressed than females (odds = 0.901, P = 0.000153). Expectedly, ‘studying medicine by choice’ was associated with decreased odds for psychosocial stressors (odds = 0.885, P = 0.00781), and improved model-fit (chi-squared = 6.8952, P = 0.008643). Also, the year of study was a predictor of teaching-related stress development. Conclusions Female medical students were more stressed due to academics than males. On the other hand, final-year students were more academically stressed than first-year students. Female medical students were likely having stress related to academic stress development, while being first-year medical student was a predictor of not developing academic stress. Studying medicine by choice’ was associated with ability to cope against stress.