Medical students’ perceptions of online, in-person, simulation-based and bedside teaching: a multicentre cross-sectional study

Undergraduate medical curricula increasingly integrate online, in-person, simulation-based and bedside teaching modalities. Despite the widespread post-pandemic adoption of blended learning, quantitative evidence comparing students’ perceptions of these formats and the factors influencing their educational value remains limited. This study aimed to compare medical students’ perceptions of different teaching modalities and explore factors associated with educational utility and engagement, including stage of training, access to learning resources, and peer interaction. A multicentre cross-sectional study was conducted across six UK medical schools between November 2024 and April 2025. A 44-item questionnaire assessed attitudes toward online and in-person lectures and seminars, simulation-based teaching and bedside teaching using Likert scales, single-best-answer items, and 1–10 utility ratings. Descriptive statistics were generated, and subgroup analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney U and Spearman’s rank tests. One hundred seventy-two students participated in the study. Bedside teaching and in-person seminars received the highest utility ratings (mean utility 8.58 and 8.31, respectively), whereas online seminars were rated substantially lower (mean 3.86). Online teaching was valued for its flexibility but was associated with lower motivation and engagement. Perceived loss of peer interaction during online learning was associated with lower motivation and engagement ( p < 0.05). Clinical-year students rated online teaching more positively than preclinical students, while students with poorer perceived access to external online learning resources assigned higher utility to institution-delivered online teaching. Simulation-based and bedside teaching were both highly rated (mean utility 8.13 and 8.58, respectively), with most participants (87.2%) preferring a combined approach. Simulation was associated with improved procedural confidence, whereas bedside teaching was perceived as superior for developing history-taking, examination and professional skills. Medical students valued a deliberately blended educational approach that combines online accessibility with the experiential and relational strengths of in-person, simulation-based and bedside teaching. While online delivery supports flexibility, reduced peer interaction may contribute to lower engagement. The complementary roles of simulation and bedside teaching suggest the value of sequential, practice-oriented learning. These findings are directly relevant to curriculum design in the UK and wider medical education, supporting blended models that prioritise interactivity, authentic clinical experience, and equitable access to high-quality learning.