In medical education, case-based learning (CBL) is a fundamental method for training healthcare professionals across different levels of expertise. This approach hinges on using authentic or fabricated clinical cases to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and its practical application. It fosters active engagement and knowledge application among learners in healthcare domains. While creating effective cases demands substantial clinical understanding and time investment, the integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents a promising solution to this challenge. AI can efficiently analyze extensive medical data to generate diverse and realistic clinical scenarios, continuously updating case content based on emerging medical literature and guidelines. This study explores AI-generated cases’ feasibility and educational value in continuing medical education, focusing on COVID-19 scenarios tailored for the MENA region. Results indicate the potential of AI-generated cases to foster engagement and critical thinking among learners, suggesting their suitability for different levels of education. This study highlights the advantages of integrating AI into CBL and emphasizes the need for future efforts to tackle obstacles and facilitate its successful adoption.

Background: Misinformation in health and health care contexts threatens public health by undermining initiatives, spreading dangerous behaviors, and influencing decision-making. Given its reach on online platforms and social media, there is growing demand for interventions addressing misinformation. Literature highlights the importance of theoretical underpinnings (frameworks and models) to guide the development of educational interventions targeting both the features of misinformation and the human traits that increase susceptibility. Objective: This review examines literature on online interventions targeting health misinformation to mitigate adverse public health impacts. It explores intervention types, population demographics, susceptibility-related human attributes, and misinformation characteristics addressed. It also identifies the theoretical underpinnings used and gaps in the literature. Methods: The review followed a methodological framework and adhered to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A search strategy combining Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and keywords was used to search five databases for studies published between 2018 and 2024. Identified studies underwent deduplication, title and abstract screening using predefined eligibility criteria, full-text screening, and data extraction. Results: The initial search yielded 513 citations; 30 (5.8%) studies were included after screening. Of these, 19 (63%) focused on COVID-19 misinformation, 11 (37%) on other health contexts, and 1 (3%) addressed misinformation conceptually. Regarding intervention type, 22 (73%) used educational courses, 7 (23%) employed counter speech, and 1 (3%) used inoculation games, with some overlap. Sixteen (53%) interventions targeted characteristics of misinformation, categorized as content and presentation tactics, cognitive and psychological biases, social and cultural influences, and dissemination strategies. Seven (23%) interventions focused on specific demographics, while 14 (47%) addressed human attributes that heighten susceptibility. These attributes were grouped into knowledge and processing, emotional and psychological factors, and trust and social dynamics. Theoretical underpinnings guided intervention development in 23 (77%) studies, often overlapping in categories including inoculation and correction, education and cognition, motivation and emotion, behavior and persuasion, trust and belief, and learning design. Conclusions: Online interventions targeting health misinformation often share outcome goals and use overlapping strategies such as educational courses, counter speech, and inoculation games. Many adopt multifaceted approaches to address misinformation’s complexity. However, gaps remain in tailoring interventions to misinformation characteristics that could improve specificity and impact. Few studies focus on human attributes contributing to belief in and spread of misinformation, particularly among vulnerable groups. While theoretical models are commonly cited, clearer reporting and stronger connections to intervention design are needed. Collaboration among intervention developers, theorists, and psychologists is recommended to enhance future interventions. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.31219/osf.io/mfujb

In our recent work we have proven quantitatively that collaborative learning improves students' knowledge retention and boosts the quality of attained learning outcomes. In this research we investigate the role that the students' gender plays in their engagement during collaborative learning and their learning performance as assessed by the teacher. In the context of the EBTIC developed Collaborative Learning Environment deployed at Khalifa University along the sequence of three group courseworks over one semesters, we intend to explore the differences between the collaborative learning style and quality in female, male and mixed-gender groups. The series of detailed cross-gender learning engagement and performance comparisons indicate that female groups tend to work simultaneously and achieve better results while male group members engage less and work in sequence. As a result female groups exploit the added benefits of collaborative learning more than the male groups. What is striking, however, the members of the mixed-gender groups excel the most, significantly improving their engagement, focus and the quality of groupwork comparing to same-gender groups. We believe this outcome delivers yet another proof of the synergies and efficiencies of interactive learning in a diverse group of students and encourages mixing genders when composing groups for collaborative learning.

Background: Participating in volunteering activities during students’ higher education experience is becoming more commonplace. Studies have noted that volunteering has a positive impact on the academic performance of undergraduate medical students. However, most of these studies rely on self-reported data like surveys, interviews, and journals. In this study, we leverage actual institutional data to examine the relationship between volunteering and academic performance among medical students in the pre-clinical phases of the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) program. The current study also explores the factors that might influence students’ volunteering behaviours. Methods: Analysis based on retrospective data was conducted in the College of Medicine at the Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences (MBRU) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Three years of volunteering records for three cohorts of undergraduate medical students enrolled in the MBBS program between 2016 – 2018 were reviewed and analyzed to complete this study. The correlation between the annual Grade Point Average (GPA) and volunteering was studied across the three cohorts in each study year. Results: Analysis of 153 undergraduate medical students' volunteering records revealed a significant positive relationship between the annual GPA and the number of volunteering in year two. The correlation was insignificant in year one, year three, and across the three cohorts. Conclusions: The association between academic performance and volunteering among undergraduate medical students appeared to be positive. However, this relationship differs across the pre-clinical study years and is likely influenced by factors associated with volunteering that might influence GPA.

Background: The world as we know it changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hope has emerged with the development of new vaccines against the disease. However, many factors hinder vaccine uptake and lead to vaccine hesitancy. Understanding the factors affecting vaccine hesitancy and how to assess its prevalence have become imperative amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The vaccine hesitancy scale (VHS), developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization, has been modified to the adult VHS (aVHS) and validated in English and Chinese. To our knowledge, no available aVHS has been designed or validated in Arabic or French. Objective: The aim of this research is to translate the aVHS from its original English language to Arabic and French and validate the translations in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean region. Methods: The study will follow a cross-sectional design divided into 5 phases. In phase 1, the original aVHS will be forward-translated to Arabic and French, followed by backward translation to English. An expert committee will review and rate all versions of the translations. Expert agreement will then be measured using the Cohen kappa coefficient (k). In phase 2, the translated aVHS will be pilot-tested with 2 samples of participants (n=100): a group that speaks both Arabic and English and another that speaks French and English. Participants’ responses to the English version will also be collected. In phase 3, responses will then be compared. Descriptive statistics and paired t tests or one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Pearson correlation coefficient will be used in the preliminary validation. In phase 4, prefinal versions (Arabic and French) will be tested with larger sample sizes of Arabic speakers (n=1000) and French speakers (n=1000). Sociodemographic information and vaccination status will be collected and used for further analysis. In phase 5, the scale's statistical reliability and internal consistency will be measured using Cronbach alpha. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) will be used to examine the model fit resulting from the EFA. ANOVA and regression models will be constructed to control for confounders. All data will be electronically collected. Results: As of January 2022, the scale had been translated to Arabic and French and was undergoing the process of back translation. All data collection tools have been prepared (ie, sociodemographics, vaccination status, and open-ended questions) and are ready to go into their electronic formats. We expect to reach the desired sample size in this phase by June 2022. Conclusions: This study will provide researchers with a validated tool to assess adult vaccine hesitancy within populations that speak Arabic and/or French and provide a road map to scale translation and ensure cross-cultural adaptation. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/36928