Kosin Medical Journal

Review article

Do we need Moodle in medical education? A review of its impact and utility: Seri Jeong, Hyunyong Hwang; Kosin Med J. 2023;38(3):159-168. Published online September 22, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.23.139

20,289 View
226 Download
10 Citations

Various learning management systems (LMSs) are available to facilitate the development, management, and distribution of digital resources for both face-to-face and online instruction. In recent decades, these methods have shown potential for greater efficiency compared to traditional "chalk and talk" approaches. Additionally, they have paved the way for the establishment of ubiquitous learning environments, marking a new era in education. In a trend accelerated by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, LMSs have been increasingly adopted to overcome the restrictions inherent to in-person education. In medical education, LMSs such as Moodle, Canvas, Blackboard Learn, and others have been introduced and used to support teaching, learning, and assessment activities. Of these, Moodle stands out as the most popular choice for many medical schools and institutions, primarily due to its flexibility, functionality, and user-friendliness. The learning environment is gradually transforming from traditional in-person teaching to a hybrid educational approach, driven by the need to fulfill diverse educational demands. Numerous research studies have examined the usability of Moodle in medical education, demonstrating its effectiveness in addressing challenges related to adaptive personalized learning, collaborative learning, blended learning, and more. Consequently, Moodle has emerged as a valuable solution for medical educators seeking a versatile and robust platform to enhance their teaching methodologies. The present review focuses on the practical utilization of Moodle in medical education and the advantages it offers to this field.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Digital transformation for sustainable healthcare education: Evaluating the impact of Moodle learning management system on ICD-11 training
Ahmad Soufi Ahmad Fuad, Erwyn Chin Wei Ooi, Azman Ahmad, Nuraidah Mohd Marzuki
Informatics and Health.2026; 3(1): 10. CrossRef
Technology-Enabled Institutional Readiness for Agile-Blended Learning: A Framework for Educational Innovation
Jessie Ming Sin Wong, Kam Cheong Li
SN Computer Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Development of an LMS-based e-literacy management model for managing the junior high school literacy movement
Oliva Ike Kurniawati
Primary: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar.2025; 14(1): 71. CrossRef
Exploring the Opportunities and Challenges of Healthcare Innovation in UK Higher Education: A Narrative Review
Renske Emicke, Ashley Shepherd, Dylan Powell
Nursing Reports.2025; 15(5): 171. CrossRef
Restructuring Physical Therapy Education After COVID-19: A Narrative Review on the Global Perspectives and the Emerging Role of Hybrid Learning Models
Kazuto Kikuchi
Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Examining the Delivery of an Online Adaptation of ACT Training in the Workplace for Nursing Professionals: A Feasibility Study
Maria Armaou, Sue Tate, Stathis Konstantinidis, Holly Blake
Occupational Health.2025; 1(1): 2. CrossRef
FACTORS INFLUENCING BEHAVIOURAL INTENTION OF ACADEMICS IN USING MOODLE: AN APPLICATION OF THE UTAUT MODEL
Oluwafemi Afolabi, Petros N Dlamini, Neil Davies Evans
International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring structural equations modelling on the use of modified UTAUT model for evaluating online learning
Stephen Gbenga Fashoto, Yinusa Akintoye Faremi, Elliot Mbunge, Olumide Owolabi
Educational Technology Quarterly.2024; 2024(3): 319. CrossRef
Looking Back on Digital Medical Education Over the Last 25 Years and Looking to the Future: Narrative Review
Oluwadamilola Ogundiya, Thahmina Jasmine Rahman, Ioan Valnarov-Boulter, Tim Michael Young
Journal of Medical Internet Research.2024; 26: e60312. CrossRef
The effectiveness of Moodle's “Lesson” feature in pre-learning about arterial puncture and blood transfusion procedures
Haeyoung Lee, Sang-Shin Lee, Hyunyong Hwang
Kosin Medical Journal.2023; 38(4): 278. CrossRef

Original article

Performance comparison between Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S and Atellica IM SARS-CoV-2 Total and SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays: Seri Jeong, Yoo Rha Hong, Hyunyong Hwang; Kosin Med J. 2022;37(2):154-162. Published online June 27, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.22.114

5,436 View
48 Download
4 Citations

Abstract PDF PubReader

Background
Although serological severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests from several manufacturers have been introduced in South Korea and some are commercially available, the performance of these test kits has not yet been sufficiently validated. Therefore, we compared the performance of Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV2) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (ACOV2S) and Atellica IM SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG) serological tests in this study.
Methods
A total of 186 patient samples were used. For each test, we analyzed the positive rate of serological antibody tests, precision, linearity, and agreement among the four assays.
Results
The positive rates of COV2T, sCOVG, and ACOV2S were high (81.7%–89.2%) in total, with those for ACOV2S being the highest, while those of ACOV2 were as low as 44.6%. This may be related to the high completion rate of vaccination in Korea. The repeatability and within-laboratory coefficients of variation were within the claimed allowable imprecision; however, further research is needed to establish an allowable imprecision at low concentrations. COV2T showed a linear fit, whereas sCOVG and ACOV2S were appropriately modeled with a nonlinear fit. Good agreement was found among COV2T, sCOVG, and ACOV2S; however, the agreement between ACOV2 and any one of the other methods was poor.
Conclusions
Considering the different antigens used in serological SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays, the performance of the tested assays is thought to show no significant difference for the qualitative detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Comparative evaluation of in-house ELISA and two commercial serological assays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2
Dabesa Gobena, Esayas Kebede Gudina, Tizta Tilahun Degfie, Tsinuel Girma, Getu Gebre, Alemseged Abdissa, Fikadu G. Tafesse, Tesfaye Gelanew, Zeleke Mekonnen
Scientific Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparative evaluation of two automated immunoassays for serum thyroglobulin quantification
Kyoung Ho Roh, Hyunyong Hwang
Kosin Medical Journal.2025; 40(3): 213. CrossRef
Comparative analysis of Access PCT and Elecsys BRAHMS PCT assays for procalcitonin measurements
Hyunji Choi, Sang-Shin Lee, Hyunyong Hwang
Kosin Medical Journal.2024; 39(4): 272. CrossRef
Evaluation of automated calibration and quality control processes using the Aptio total laboratory automation system
Namhee Kim, Yein Kim, Jeongeun Park, Jungsoo Choi, Hyunyong Hwang
Kosin Medical Journal.2022; 37(4): 342. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search