Table 2.
Synthesized table of extracted data for studies that met eligibility criteria
| In-text citation | Type of health professional learner | Description and/or purpose of the BLP | How is the program labeled in the study | Country and/or Region of Study | Usability Component Being Evaluated | Was the overall concept of “Usability” explicitly evaluated and/or discussed? | Method of evaluation | Did the study discuss instrument reliability, standardization, and/or validity if utilized? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [86] | Physiotherapy students (3rd year) | To teach ethics in physiotherapy | Blended learning | Spain | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Self-reported questionnaires (the Attitudes Questionnaire towards Professional Ethics in Physiotherapy – AQPEPT; Perceptions about Knowledge regarding Professional Ethics in Physiotherapy; and a student’s opinion questionnaire | The self-reported questionnaire were previously validated with good-high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.898; 0.760 respectively); the reliability/standardization/validity of the student’s opinion questionnaire was Not indicated |
| [103] | Medical students (6th year); practicing family doctors and interns | To improve professional competence in the certification of causes of death in the Spanish National Health System | Blended learning | Spain | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | “Quasi-experimental” pre- and post-survey | Not indicated |
| [104] | Internal medicine postgraduate trainees (2nd year) | To teach outpatient diabetes management | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | No | Opinion questionnaire; focus groups; pre-post and 6 month follow-up knowledge test (New England Journal of Medicine Knowledge + Question Bank); and an attitudinal survey using a 5-point Likert scale | Not indicated for the opinion questionnaire and the attitudinal survey; the Knowledge + Question Bank seems to be standardized |
| [105] | All dental students (year not specified) registered in a Clerkship at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | To teach material on oral and maxillofacial surgery in a 2-week clerkship | Blended learning using a flipped classroom approach | Germany | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | No | Pre-post test with 20 single-choice questions; program evaluation questionnaire delivered on a 10-point Likert scale | Not indicated |
| [106] | Dental students (2nd year) | To teach pediatric dentistry | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and post-survey (8 items), which includes an additional 12 questions administered at the end of the program only. Surveys included Likert scales (1–5); thematic analysis conducted on open-ended questions | Not indicated |
| [107] | Medical residents (internal medicine) | To teach students in an internal medicine residency program | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation level 1 and 2. Pre-post survey with Likert scale (1–5); comparison between students enrolled in the flipped classroom curriculum vs. the traditional course | Study functioned to validate their survey |
| [87] | Medical students (4th and 5th year) | To teach students differential diagnosis | Inverted classroom | Germany | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and post-survey (standardized questionnaire form University of Marburg) with Likert scales (1–5); focus group | Standardized |
| [88] | Pharmacy students (3rd year) | To teach pharmacotherapy oncology | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | ANCOVA analysis on examination scores using previous academic performance variables (i.e., undergraduate GPA) as covariates. Summative teaching evaluation (two-item questionnaire) | Not indicated |
| [93] | Medical students (1st year) | To teach advanced cardiac life support | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; efficiency | No | Comparison of three written evaluations (multiple-choice questions) between students taking part in BLP vs. traditional program. Ungraded 10-question quizzes to gauge student compliance with podcast viewing | - |
| [108] | Chiropractic students (2nd year) | To teach clinical microbiology | Inverted classroom model | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Test performance compared between students being taught using an inverted classroom model and students being taught using the traditional lecture-based face-to-face method; a six-question survey | Indicates that most survey items were adapted from items appeared in validated study surveys; face validity of the survey was established by the university’s director of academic assessment and two other faculty members; Cronbach’s alpha was also calculated |
| [109] | Health professional students (physical therapy, occupational therapy, and other) and health professionals (physical therapist, occupational therapist, prosthetics and orthotics, MD—physiatry working in hospital, academic, outpatient and in-patient settings | To increase knowledge in basic-level wheelchair service provision | Hybrid course | India and Mexico | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Quasi-experimental design with non-equivalent control groups; test and satisfaction survey using a 5-point Likert scale | Validity and standardization discussed for the test, and mentions that the satisfaction survey was created from adapting a previously established survey |
| [110] | Nursing students (4th-year undergraduates) | To teach pediatric nursing content | Flipped classroom | Bahrain | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | No | Quiz; class-engagement scores; and focus groups | Not indicated |
| [67] | Nursing students (1st year) | To teach a course called “Human Beings and Health” | Flipped learning | South Korea | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Flipped Course Evaluation Questionnaire; open-ended questions; focus groups. Conventional content analysis | Not indicated |
| [89] | Practicing nurses | To teach a course called “Patient Navigation in Oncology Nursing” | Blended learning | Canada | Effectiveness | No | Questionnaire (adapted from standardized questionnaire), including a Likert scale (1–5) and additional open-ended questions | Standardized |
| [111] | Doctor of Physical Therapy students (in the first two semesters) | To teach gross anatomy | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness | No | Comparison of examinations and grades between students in a flipped vs. traditional anatomy class | - |
| [112] | Medical students (4th year) | To teach a course on management of trauma patients | Inverted classroom | Colombia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and post-test; generic institutional questionnaire; and evaluation by Flipped Classroom Perception Instrument (FCPI) | Not indicated |
| [71] | Medical students (3rd and 4th year) | To teach students in a geriatric medicine rotation | Blended learning | Australia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and post-knowledge assessment instrument | Not indicated |
| [113] | Dental students (3rd and 4th year) | To teach topics from dental pharmacology related to oral lesions and orofacial pain | Blended learning | Malaysia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Qualitative thematic analysis of student reflections | - |
| [72] | Emergency department staff members (RNs, nursing assistants, and unit coordinators) | To provide staff with health information technology training | Blended learning | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Qualitative analysis of 13-question survey, including Likert scale (1–5). Responses summarized into “satisfaction score,” plus additional thematic analysis | Indicates that the survey used was pre-existent, but does not use the word validated |
| [51] | Nursing students (undergraduates—year not explicitly stated) | To teach a course about information technology for nurses | Blended learning | Saudi Arabia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | 6-tool descriptive research design, including comparison of student grades (enrolled vs. not enrolled in BLP); Student Satisfaction Survey (Likert scale 1–5), and teacher/course evaluations | Indicates that the survey used is a modified version of the Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality Survey |
| [114] | Midwifery students in a master’s program (note that all students in the program were midwifery educators who had previous training as nurses-midwives and 5 to 30 years of experience) | To teach midwifery educators about learning styles and pedagogical approaches | Blended learning | Bangladesh | Effectiveness; efficiency | No | Structured baseline questionnaire; endpoint questionnaire; and focus groups—the questionnaires used 5-point Likert scales and open-ended responses; qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis | Not indicated |
| [115] | Pharmacy students (final year) | To teach diabetes mellitus counseling skills | Blended learning | Germany | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Online tests; objective structured clinical examination scores; surveys using a 6-point Likert scale | Not indicated |
| [73] | Practicing midwives | To provide midwives with increased training and education in perinatal mental health education | Blended learning | UK (Scotland) | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | A modified online Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE); evaluation of portfolios of reflective accounts | - |
| [74] | Nursing students (3rd year) | To assist learners in strengthening their communication skills in mental health nursing | Blended learning | Norway | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Exploratory design; questionnaire with open-ended questions (Likert scale 1–5). Content analysis | Determined face validity of the questionnaire through discussion with a reference group |
| [75] | Nutrition/dietetics students (undergraduates—year not explicitly stated) | To teach the courses “Professional Skills in Dietetics” and “Community Nutrition” | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Survey with Likert scale (1–5) | Reliability tested (assessed the Cronbach alpha of the survey prior to utilizing it) |
| [84] | Pharmacy students (2nd year) | To teach a course called Dosage Form II (sterile preparations) | Flipped classroom | Malaysia | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Quasi-experimental pre- and post-test intervention; and a web-based survey using a 5-point Likert scale | Not indicated |
| [76] | Medical students (3rd year—family medicine clerkship) | To teach behavior change counseling | Blended learning | USA | Effectiveness | No | Attitude and Knowledge assessment; 12-item pre- and post-class assessment; additional 5 questions only at conclusion | Not clearly indicated—mentions that items were derived from questions developed by Martino et al. (2007) |
| [77] | Pharmacy students (1st year) | To teach advanced physiology | Flipped teaching | USA | Effectiveness | No | Comparison of exam grades between different cohorts (flipped vs. non-flipped) | - |
| [78] | Medical students (4th year) | To teach social determinants of health | Flipped learning | UK | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | First level of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model: questionnaire (Likert scale 1–4); semi-structured group interview; thematic analysis | Not indicated |
| [56] | Physiotherapy students (2nd year) | To teach gross anatomy | Blended learning | Australia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Retrospective cohort study of student grades and student feedback (“Likert-style questions”); thematic and content analysis | Not indicated |
| [57] | Medical students (5th year) | To teach radiology content | Blended learning | UK | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Questionnaire | Not indicated |
| [116] | Doctor of Chiropractic Program students (year not specified) | To teach an introductory extremities radiology course | Integrative blended learning | USA | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | No | Cross-sectional comparison of students cohorts learning via an integrative blended learning approach vs. traditional approach; comparison of test scores from lecture and laboratory examinations; and a course evaluation | The course evaluation questions that were analyzed came from the institutional-based course evaluation system |
| [58] | Pharmacy students (2nd year) | To teach the principles of nutrition for diabetes mellitus | Flipped classroom | Thailand | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Test scores compared between different cohorts (flipped vs. non-flipped); student feedback via 15-item survey (Likert scale 1–5); plus open-ended feedback from two peer instructors (not affiliated with course development or instruction) | Not indicated |
| [117] | Healthcare providers (family physicians and allied health professionals) | To train primary care physicians in rheumatology care | Blended learning | Pakistan | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | No | Participation in teaching activities; pre- and post-course self-assessment; written feedback; and a questionnaire | Not indicated |
| [118] | Nursing students (2nd to 4th year) | To teach a course on patient safety | Flipped classroom | South Korea | Effectiveness | No | Quasi-experimental study with a non-equivalent control group; pre-post test administered as a survey containing demographic questionnaire and the Patient Safety Competency Self-Evaluation (PSCSE) which uses a 5-point Likert scale | Indication of PSCSE validation and reliability is made |
| [52] | Pharmacy students (2nd year) | To teach a pharmacotherapy course | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and post test scores compared between different cohorts (flipped vs. un-flipped); pre- and post-course survey (designed to assess levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning with Likert scale 1–5); content analysis | Indicates that survey questions were adapted from a validated survey instrument of student attitudes toward televised courses |
| [55] | Doctor of Pharmacy students (2nd year) | To teach a course on gastrointestinal and liver pharmacotherapy | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | No | Traditional vs. flipped classroom instruction impacts measured in cohorts via pre-post course survey using Likert scales, quizzes, and mean student performance | Not indicated |
| [59] | Medical students (1st year) | To teach biochemistry | Inverted classroom | Germany | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Exam marks compared between different cohorts; course evaluation; questionnaire; indicates that qualitative data were collected but did not reference the type of qualitative analysis that was conducted in the study | Not indicated (but does mention that the questionnaire was derived from a previous study by Rindermann et al., 2001) |
| [90] | Osteopathic medicine students (3rd year—pediatric clerkship) | To teach students in a pediatric rotation | Blended learning | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Osteopathic Medical Achievement Test (120 items) scores and final course grades; preceptor evaluations (18 items, Likert scale 1–10) were compared between the standard learning and blended learning groups; post-course survey; identifies themes but does not discuss the type of qualitative analysis (i.e., thematic, content, etc.) or provide a reference to the approach that was used to derive these findings | Not indicated |
| [91] | Practicing pharmacists | To assist pharmacy practitioners in acquiring competency in and accreditation for conducting collaborative comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) | Does not refer to BL or any of its synonyms | Finland | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Evaluation of participants’ learning through learner diaries; written assignments and portfolio. Post-intervention survey (Likert scale 1–5) | Not indicated, but survey routinely used by University of Kuopio, Centre for Training and Development |
| [53] | Medical students (3rd year—surgery clerkship) | To teach a surgical clerkship | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Traditional vs. flipped classroom instruction impacts measured in cohorts via end-of-rotation NBME Surgery Subject Examination; course evaluation survey using a 5-point Likert scale and open-ended questions; and an open-ended survey analyzed using conventional qualitative content analysis | Not indicated for the surveys; the exam was indicated to be valid and standardized |
| [54] | Diagnostic Radiology and Imaging BSc Honours Program students (2nd year) | To teach a course in relation to radiology and imaging | Blended learning | UK | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Two questionnaires, one for students and one for staff; identifies themes but does not discuss the type of qualitative analysis (i.e., thematic, content, etc.) or provide a reference to the approach that was used to derive these findings | Not indicated |
| [79] | Medical students (4th year—family medicine course) | To teach a family medicine course | Blended learning | Saudi Arabia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Dundee “ready educational environment measure” (50-items, Likert scale 1–4); the ‘objective structured clinical examination’; written examination with multiple-choice questions; analysis of case scenarios—comparison between intervention and non-intervention groups | Validated |
| [60] | Midwifery students (1st year) | To teach a course on Research, Evidence and Clinical Practice | Blended learning | Australia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | University-based course evaluations (Likert scale 1–5) | Not indicated |
| [61] | Nursing students (accelerated undergraduates—year not explicitly stated) | To teach a course on evidence-based nursing practice | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | 2 surveys (one after pre-class module, one at end of semester) with Likert scale (1–5); plus qualitative questions. Conventional content analysis | Not indicated |
| [120] | Pharmacy students (1st year) | To teach the course Basic Pharmaceutics II (PHCY 411) | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and post-course surveys | Not indicated |
| [119] | Pharmacy students (2nd year) | To teach venous thromboembolism (VTE) to students enrolled in a pharmacotherapy course | Blended learning | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Comparison of engagement and performance based on online module access; pre-and post-test; response to in-class Automated Response System; exam performance; survey | Not indicated |
| [69] | Medical students (3rd year) | To teach introductory medical statistics | Blended learning | Serbia | Effectiveness; efficiency | No | Comparison of grades (20 multiple-choice test, plus final knowledge test) between students taking part in a blended program and a traditional program | - |
| [92] | General practice trainers | To teach a “Modular Trainers Course” which provided instruction on General Practice Specialty Registrars | Blended learning | UK | Satisfaction; efficiency | No | Participant feedback (Likert scale 1–4); Identifies themes but does not discuss the type of qualitative analysis (i.e., thematic, content, etc.) or provide a reference to the approach that was used to derive these findings | Not indicated |
| [121] | Master of Public Health students | To teach an introductory graduate course on epidemiology | Flipped classroom | Canada | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Surveys containing both Likert scale (1–5) and open-ended questions, which were administered at 3 time points; additional Learner Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) Survey | Standardized |
| [122] | Medical students (1st year) | To teach a required integrated basic-science course called Foundations of Medicine | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Comparison of final exam marks between students that took part in the FC vs. those in the LC; learner evaluations. Evaluations derived from Bloom’s taxonomy | Not indicated |
| [62] | Medical students (1st and 2nd year) | To teach an anatomy course | Blended learning | Turkey | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Focus groups with purposive sample of students with high, medium and low academic scores; content analysis | - |
| [70] | Medical students (3rd and 4th year—radiology clerkship or elective) | To teach neuroimaging content | Flipped learning | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | 19-item electronic survey; shortened version of the class-related emotions section of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire; pre- and post-test | Validated |
| [63] | Nursing students (undergraduates—year not explicitly stated) | To teach a flipped learning nursing informatics course | Flipped learning | South Korea | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | 3 levels of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model: 10-item questionnaire; course outcomes achievement (multiple choice test, essay, checklist); follow-up survey | Not indicated |
| [123] | Nursing students (2nd year) | To teach a nursing informatics course | Flipped learning | South Korea | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Pre-post test, one-group, quasi-experimental design; preliminary test; 5-point Likert scale questionnaire; post-course feedback analyzed using the generation of themes | Preliminary test questions were reliability tested; not indicated for the questionnaire |
| [124] | Health professional students (dental medicine; dietetics; medicine; occupational therapy; pharmacy; physical therapy; social work; speech language pathology) | To teach an interdisciplinary evidence-based practice course | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Module quizzes; Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS), plus survey with Likert scale (1–5) | Validated |
| [80] | Allied health students (nursing; health science; podiatry; occupational therapist; physiotherapist; paramedicine; speech pathology; exercise physiology; oral health) | To teach a first-year, first semester, physiology course | Blended learning | Australia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Student grades; cross-sectional survey (Likert scale 1–5). Thematic analysis | Not indicated |
| [125] | Nursing students (1st year) | To teach a first-year course on health assessment | Flipped classroom | Canada | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Student grades; feedback (comparison between different cohort of students—intervention vs. no intervention) | Not indicated |
| [81] | Pharmacy students (1st, 2nd, and 3rd year) | To teach three courses: (1) small ambulatory care; (2) cardiovascular pharmacotherapeutics; and (3) evidence-based medicine | Blended learning | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Exam grades; student survey; and additional open-ended questions asked to faculty. Thematic analysis on open ended questions | Not indicated |
| [68] | Medical students; dental students; pharmacy students | To teach physiology | Blended learning | Montenegro | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Comparison of grades on assessments between intervention and non-intervention group; survey (Likert scale 1–5); use of online material | Not indicated |
| [126] | Dental students (4th year) | To teach conservative dentistry and clinical dental skills in a course | Blended learning with a flipped classroom approach | Jordan | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Comparison between students being taught via blended learning and traditional methods; performance measures included two exams, two assignments, in-clinic quizzes, and a clinical assessment; number of posts made by students in study groups and online discussion forums; and a questionnaire | Not indicated |
| [127] | Emergency medicine residents (post graduate year 3) | To teach a course on pediatric emergency medicine | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and Post-test; survey. Zaption analytics to determine levels of interaction with online content | Not indicated |
| [82] | Emergency medicine residents | To teach a course on pediatric emergency medicine | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and post-test; survey. Zaption analytics to determine levels of interaction with online content | Not indicated |
| [128] | Nursing students (3rd year) | To teach a course entitled “Quality management methodology of nursing services” | Blended learning | Spain | Effectiveness | No | Quasi-experimental post-treatment design with equal control group; the ACRAr Scales of Learning Strategies; student learning results | The scale was indicated to be reliability tested and validated |
| [64] | Medical students (1st and 2nd year) | To teach radiology interpretation skills | Blended learning | Australia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and post-test; survey. Identifies themes but does not discuss the type of qualitative analysis (i.e., thematic, content, etc.) or provide a reference to the approach that was used to derive these findings | Not indicated |
| [129] | Medical Documentation and Secretarial Program students | To teach a course on medical terminology | Flipped classroom | Turkey | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | No | Study Process Questionnaire which uses a 5-point Likert-type scale; learning activity participation rates; final exam grades; and an online survey comprised of open-ended questions which were followed up by telephone interviews—qualitative analysis technique was not specified explicitly | The Study Process Questionnaire was previously validated and reliability tested; no indication for the survey |
| [130] | Faculty of Medicine students (2nd year) | To provide vascular access skill training via a Good Medical Practices Program in the faculty | Flipped classroom | Turkey | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | No | Prospective controlled post-test and delayed-test research design involving a comparison with a control group; performance test; 5-point Likert-type assessment scale; feedback analyzed through qualitative themes | Not indicated |
| [65] | Undergraduate medical students (year not explicitly stated—pediatric clerkship) | To improve newborn examination skills/neonatology | Blended learning | Australia | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Performance of newborn examination on standardized assessment compared between blended learning and control group; questionnaire | Not indicated |
| [83] | Medical students (4th-year ophthalmology clerkship) | To teach an ophthalmology clerkship | Flipped classroom | China | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | A questionnaire modified from Paul Ramsden’s Course Experience Questionnaire and Biggs’ Study Process questionnaire with verified reliability and validity | Adapted from a questionnaire that was previously reliability tested and validated |
| [85] | Dental students (2nd year) | To teach a medical physiology course | Inverted classroom model | China | Effectiveness; efficiency | No | Comparison between traditional and blended learning classes; Kolb’s learning style inventory (LSI); and a satisfaction questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale | Kolb’s LSI is indicated to be reliability tested and valid; the satisfaction questionnaire was developed based on the Course Experience Questionnaire which is indicated to be used in Australia |
| [131] | Medical students (3rd year) | To teach a medical statistics course | Flipped classroom | China | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Learning motivation measured by an 11-item students’ interest questionnaire; self-regulated learning was measured using a 10-item questionnaire; academic performance measured using a self-designed test; course satisfaction measured via student feedback using a 5-point Likert Scale | The learning motivation questionnaire was partially developed using items revised from an academic interest scale—internal consistency discussed; self-regulated learning questionnaire was developed according to previously developed scales—internal consistency discussed; not indicated for the satisfaction measurement |
| [132] | Practicing nurses | To teach a course on occupational health nursing | Blended learning | USA | Effectiveness | No | Survey | Not indicated |
| [97] | Postgraduates enrolled in a master program (includes nurses, medical doctors, pharmacists, paramedics, and policy officer) | To teach a course on quality and safety in patient care | Blended learning | Netherlands | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | Yes | Questionnaires using a 5-point Likert scale | Indicates that one of the questionnaires was developed previously but not published elsewhere, provides a Cronbach’s alpha score for the constructs of the questionnaire |
| [133] | Doctor of Pharmacy students (all years) | To teach advanced pharmacy practice courses | Blended learning | Qatar | Effectiveness; efficiency; satisfaction | No | Focus groups analyzed using thematic analysis | - |
| [66] | Pharmacy students (1st year) | To teach 3 classes on cardiac arrhythmias | Flipped teaching | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; Efficiency | No | Exam scores; 15-item survey (Likert scale 1–4); student feedback (comparison of intervention and non-intervention groups) | Not indicated |
| [134] | Doctor of Dental Surgery students (1st year) | To teach physiology of the autonomic nervous system | Flipped classroom | USA | Effectiveness | No | Student performance assessed via quiz | - |
| [135] | Nursing students (senior level students—year not explicitly stated) | To teach a course on sleep education | Does not refer to BL or any of its synonyms | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction; efficiency | No | Pre- and post-quiz; student feedback (Likert scale, 1–10) | Not indicated |
| [136] | Undergraduate clinical medicine students (2nd year) | To teach a course on physiology | Flipped classroom | China | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Pre-post test comparison between students being taught in traditional vs. flipped classroom methods; and a questionnaire | Not indicated |
| [94] | Pharmacists working in various community pharmacies in urban areas | To train pharmacists in cardiovascular disease risk assessment | Blended learning | Qatar | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | The authors sought to evaluate the program using Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation framework (though the results do not explicitly indicate which levels of the model were assessed for); this includes pre-post questionnaires; interactive quizzes; objective structured clinical examination; and a satisfaction survey using a 5-point Likert Scale | Not indicated |
| [137] | Graduate health professional students [medicine; nursing (clinical nurse leader); pharmacy; public health; and Master of Social Work] | To teach a course on population health and clinical emersion | Blended learning | USA | Effectiveness; satisfaction | No | Pre- and post-assessment; reflection paper; assessment for Interprofessional Team Communication scale (AITCS) with Likert scale (1–5); course evaluations; benchmark reported through electronic medical record | Validated |