Actionable companion · Learning design & outcomes
Learning with agency: Digital learning resource use among Swedish medical students: insights from a nationwide survey
AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.
Evidence and context
Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Higher education, Children · stage unspecified. Health-professions learning must be distinguished from K–12 instruction.
Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:
Background Medical students navigate a complex landscape of digital tools with potential to enhance learning. The main objectives of the current study were to investigate which digital resources are being used, which background factors are associated with utilization, perceived advantages and disadvantages of different digital resources, and explore future directions. Methods Cross-sectional, nationwide, online 25-item multiple-choice question survey and one free-text question enabling qualitative data analysis. Medical students at all seven universities with medical school programs in Sweden were invited to participate. Data were collected October – December 2024. Results One thousand seven hundred sixty-six students responded to the survey, with an average response rate of 20.2% across sites. The five most frequently used digital resources were (percentage using at least on a weekly basis): University study platform (75.3%), videos (68.0%), flashcards (66.4%), student notes (53.4%) and external study platforms (47.3%). Flashcards were perceived to have a large to very large positive impact on development and maintenance of theoretical knowledge by 63.7% of students. Younger age (≤ 25 years) was strongly associated with higher use of flashcards (OR 1.98 (95% CI 1.54–2.54)) and generative artificial intelligence (AI) (OR 1.66 (1.29–2.15)), whereas having children at home was associated with more frequent use of videos (OR 2.32 (1.32–4.08)) and university digital platforms (OR 2.62 (1.26–5.45)), in multivariable logistic regression analyses. Most students (74.8%) reported finding their digital resources based on recommendations from more senior medical students. Perceived key advantages of digital resources in general were availability (90.9%), flexibility (80.6%), and more effective learning compared to traditional modalities (59.0%), while possible disadvantages included risk for distraction (49.6%) and uncertainty regarding reliability of content (45.4%). Qualitative data highlighted several areas of interest, including calls for universities and lecturers to provide high-quality, updated video material and flashcard decks tailored to the curriculum, and review and recommend third-party digital resources (e.g., YouTube channels). Conclusions Medical students extensively use digital resources, with perceived large positive learning effects and benefits. Several background factors influence usage patterns. These data may support institutions, program directors and teachers in their efforts to guide and improve use of digital learning tools in medical schools. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-025-07446-7.
What kind of evidence is this?
Supporting AI learning science · Qualitative / mixed methods
Stage: Higher education; Children · stage unspecified. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.
Study methods · source passage
This cross-sectional, nationwide survey study aimed to evaluate the use of digital resources among medical students in Sweden. Students from all seven universities with medical school programs were invited to participate, i.e., (ordered geographically from south to north) Lund, Göteborg, Linköping, Örebro, Stockholm, Uppsala, and Umeå. Since no sensitive personal data were collected, the Swedish Ethical Review Authority presented no ethical objections to the project, deemed the study exempt from full review, and waived the need for consent to participate (Dnr 2024–03072-01). The manuscript is reported according to the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) (Supplemental Checklist).
Limitations and uncertainty · source passage
The overarching objective of the study was to achieve a better understanding of medical students´ learning methods and techniques, to support and enable future recommendations, tailoring and design of digital learning resources. In contrast to previous single-institution attempts to investigate use of digital resources among medical students, our study was nationwide, with the potential to generate more broadly generalisable results.
Design the system before the pilot
Use this study to inform a learning mechanism or implementation question. It is not direct evidence that autonomous agents improve learning. Keep the proposed agent behavior separate from what the source actually tested.
- Specify a measurable learning objective, a comparator and a task without tool assistance before adopting a system.
A 90-day district pilot
- Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
- Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one disciplinary task. Require a first attempt, a documented AI consultation, a critique of the output and an independent explanation. Align the comparison group and scoring rubric with the same objective. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
- Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
- Days 61–90 · Decide. Blind-score reasoning and accuracy on a new task without AI. Distinguish model examination scores, student perceptions and actual learner gains; only the last directly tests educational benefit. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.
The board decision brief
Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.
Attribution and reuse
Martin F. Bjurström; Emma Lundkvist; Louise W. Sturesson; Ola Borgquist; Robin Lundén; Malin Jonsson Fagerlund; Miklós Lipcsey; Thomas Kander. Digital learning resource use among Swedish medical students: insights from a nationwide survey. BMC Medical Education (2025-06-11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07446-7
Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.