ArticleFEBS open bio2022
'Everyone is trying to outcompete each other': a qualitative study of medical student attitudes to a novel peer-assessed undergraduate teamwork module.
Article in FEBS open bio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metacognitive awareness and growth mindset in health science students: implications for teamwork education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Student-Oriented Competency Building Module: Implications for the Improvement of Global Health Education.China CDC weekly · 2026Article
- Implications for developing global health education in China: evidence from an undergraduate teamwork with role-play.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- 'Let's work together to pass medical school': a qualitative study of medical student attitudes to teamwork, competition and collaboration.FEBS open bio · 2025Article
- Making teamwork work: enhancing teamwork and assessment in higher education.FEBS open bio · 2025Review
- The impacts of innovation capability and social adaptability on undergraduates' employability: The role of self-efficacy.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The centrality of teamwork in ensuring the effective functioning of institutions across all sectors is undeniable. However, embedding teamwork into higher education has been hampered due to a range of deeply entrenched practices associated broadly with the foregrounding of knowledge, beliefs about the place of skill training and routines of assessment. As a result, despite an urgent need to address teamwork, little progress has been made with respect to progressing teamwork education. We have designed and evaluated a novel teamwork module delivered to fourth-year undergraduate medical students involving placements, a cocreated piece of work, reflection and summative peer assessment. This paper aimed to investigate whether the module increased students' insight into teamwork, including their own skill development, and whether their perceptions of teamwork changed. Throughout the evaluation, students played a key role, with four final-year medical students working alongside others in the multidisciplinary project team. Five distinct themes emerged from our in-depth, semi-structured interviews: (a) importance and meaning; (b) insight into skill development; (c) transferability; (d) peer assessment; and (e) resistance to teamwork education. Themes had positive and negative components, and student perceptions changed in multiple ways after experiencing a longitudinal educational opportunity to develop their teamwork skills. Before practice, students focused on superficial explanations and on where they might improve. In contrast, after practice, students conveyed deeper insights, contextualisation, focus on how they might improve, and shared structured reflection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.