Longitudinal study demonstrates enhanced morphology training in medical professionals using digital methods, improving skills and efficiency.
Background: Mastery of cellular morphology interpretation is fundamental to the professional growth of clinical laboratory physicians. Conventional morphology training has limitations, while digital platforms have their own challenges. There is an urgent need to balance the benefits of traditional and online learning to optimize morphology training. Methods: This 12-year longitudinal predictive modeling study used a mixed-methods design. It involved 301 medical professionals from the First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, with 244 remaining after applying exclusion criteria. Participants received traditional classroom training and online learning. A pre-training survey was used to stratify participants in 2024. Competency was assessed via a 100-item digital image bank, and multivariate logistic regression and nomogram construction were performed for analysis. Results: The results showed that online learning, professional experience, professional title, and age significantly predicted morphological test scores. Early—career practitioners preferred online modules and performed better digitally, while senior staff showed a strong preference for traditional workshops. After implementing a personalized training program in 2024 based on career-stage preferences, there was a significant improvement in morphology examination scores, with a 6.90—point mean elevation. The program also reduced the incidence of subthreshold performance by 63.19% and optimized resource utilization, reducing training hours by 52.2% and teaching space by 50%. Conclusion: This study validates the importance of aligning training methods with career stage-specific cognitive variations and technological adaptability. It provides a practical prediction tool for cultivating morphological expertise, advancing medical morphology pedagogy in the digital age.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: