Medical English

This mixed-method study endeavored to solicit the perspectives of Iranian collegiate students passing the obligatory course of medical English through Navid Learning Management System and its acceptance during COVID-19 pandemic. Utilizing Technology Acceptance Model, this study also sought to examine the possible effect gender, academic degree, instructional mode, and e-learning duration in LMS may have on the participants' attitudes. An online survey was employed to gather data from 78 Iranian students. Semi-structured interviews with ten participants were conducted as well to shed more light on the quantitative data regarding main advantages and disadvantages of medical English learning through Navid. The data were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics along with inductive thematic analysis, respectively. Findings revealed that Iranian collegiate medical students viewed Navid as a comprehensive e-learning platform to be favorable in terms of its system/service quality, student/educational service quality, and perceived satisfaction, but its perceived satisfaction was not aligned with their needs. Moreover, neither the individual variables, (viz., age and academic degree), nor the instructional variables (viz., instructional mode and e-learning duration) were predictors of the discrepancies among the participants in their perspectives and acceptance of Navid. Learning ubiquitously and lacking face-to-face communication were the main advantage and disadvantage of learning medical English through Navid, respectively. Results revealed that although under the Covid-19 pandemic the acceptance of Navid and students' satisfaction with its use might not be related to the individual and instructional variables in the medical English courses, it might not be the case in others.

This study addresses the science mapping and visualization of the 112 years of academic literature on medical English. The data for the present study was retrieved from the Web of Science database, which contains all English-only articles from 1912 to 2024. The scientometric techniques and analysis were done using VOSviewer. These methods of analysis include publication and citation patterns, co-authorship and co-occurrence networks, and bibliometric coupling of items. The findings indicated that the total number of articles published in Medical English from 1912 to 2024 was 10396. The publications surged from 1988 to 1992 and had a steady rise until its peak in 2023. Citations, however, differ from publication trends and have fluctuated during this time frame. Furthermore, authors, institutions, and the country's collaborative networks were examined to have a snapshot of the relationships across disciplines. The findings revealed a strong correlation between co-authorship and bibliometric coupling of countries, which shows that the USA, the UK, Australia, and Canada collaborate the most within the literature. Universities of San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington are considered among the leading research institutions in terms of output, while universities such as San Francisco, Harvard University, and Toronto rank among the top in terms of citations. Moving to author-level metrics, the output and citation patterns indicate that De Lusignan and Schillinger are the most prolific authors. At the same time, Shimada, Yoshida, and Grumbach have the most citations. Moreover, keyword co-occurrences showed that keywords such as "care," "impact," "healthcare," "health," and "quality" tended to appear most frequently in the literature.