Background: The disruption of health and medical education by the COVID-19 pandemic made educators question the effect of online setting on students' learning, motivation, self-efficacy and preference. In light of the health care staff shortage online scalable education seemed relevant. Reviews on the effect of online medical education called for high quality RCTs, which are increasingly relevant with rapid technological development and widespread adaption of online learning in universities. The objective of this trial is to compare standardized and feasible outcomes of an online and an onsite setting of a research course regarding the efficacy for PhD students within health and medical sciences: Primarily on learning of research methodology and secondly on preference, motivation, self-efficacy on short term and academic achievements on long term. Based on the authors experience with conducting courses during the pandemic, the hypothesis is that student preferred onsite setting is different to online setting.

Methods: Cluster randomized trial with two parallel groups. Two PhD research training courses at the University of Copenhagen are randomized to online (Zoom) or onsite (The Parker Institute, Denmark) setting. Enrolled students are invited to participate in the study. Primary outcome is short term learning. Secondary outcomes are short term preference, motivation, self-efficacy, and long-term academic achievements. Standardized, reproducible and feasible outcomes will be measured by tailor made multiple choice questionnaires, evaluation survey, frequently used Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, Single Item Self-Efficacy Question, and Google Scholar publication data. Sample size is calculated to 20 clusters and courses are randomized by a computer random number generator. Statistical analyses will be performed blinded by an external statistical expert.

Discussion: Primary outcome and secondary significant outcomes will be compared and contrasted with relevant literature. Limitations include geographical setting; bias include lack of blinding and strengths are robust assessment methods in a well-established conceptual framework. Generalizability to PhD education in other disciplines is high. Results of this study will both have implications for students and educators involved in research training courses in health and medical education and for the patients who ultimately benefits from this training.

Trial registration: Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05736627. SPIRIT guidelines are followed.

Keywords: Achievements; Health and Medical education; Learning; Motivation; Online; Onsite; Preference; Randomized; Self-efficacy; Teaching.

© 2024. The Author(s).

背景： COVID-19大流行对健康和医学教育的破坏使教育工作者质疑在线环境对学生学习、动机、自我效能感和偏好的影响。鉴于医疗人员短缺，可扩展的在线教育显得尤为重要。关于在线医学教育效果的综述呼吁进行高质量的随机对照试验（RCT），随着技术快速发展和大学广泛采用在线学习，这些试验变得越来越相关。本试验的目标是对比在线和现场设置的研究课程对健康和医学科学领域博士生的有效性：主要是在研究方法的学习方面，其次是短期偏好的、动机的、自我效能感以及长期学术成就方面的比较。基于作者在疫情期间开展课程的经验，假设学生更偏好现场设置而非在线设置。

方法： 群随机试验，两组平行设计。将哥本哈根大学的两个博士研究培训课程随机分配到在线（Zoom）或现场（丹麦Parker研究所）环境进行。报名参加的学生被邀请参与这项研究。主要结局是短期学习效果。次要结局包括短期偏好、动机、自我效能感以及长期学术成就。通过定制设计的选择题问卷、评估调查表、常用的内在动机量表、单一项目自我效能感问题和Google Scholar出版数据来衡量标准、可重复且可行的结局指标。样本量计算为20个群体，课程通过计算机随机数生成器进行随机分配。统计分析将由外部统计专家在盲态下完成。

讨论： 主要结果和次要显著结果将与相关文献进行比较和对照。局限性包括地理位置设置；偏差包括无法双盲，而评估方法稳健、概念框架完善则是优势。该研究的普适性在其他学科的博士教育中较高。这项研究的结果将对参与健康和医学教育研究培训课程的学生和教育者以及最终受益于这种训练的患者产生影响。

试验注册： 回溯性注册于ClinicalTrials.gov：NCT05736627。遵循SPIRIT指南。

关键词： 成就；健康与医学教育；学习；动机；在线；现场；偏好；随机化；自我效能感；教学。