ArticleBMC medical education2022
Opening up a tailored tutor qualification program for medical students to other healthcare students - a mixed-method study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "Between formulas and freestyle" - a qualitative analysis of peer tutor preparation and its impact on peer relations.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer-led tutorials are widely used in medical education to promote practical skills acquisition and support faculty staff. Typically, student tutors are custom trained for this specific task. We investigated whether opening up an existing medical tutor qualification program to other degree programs is successful in terms of acceptance among students, acquisition of tutor-specific and interprofessional competencies, and which factors contribute to success or failure.
methodsWe developed a two-day tutor qualification program and conducted it annually from 2016 to 2020 with medical and other healthcare students. At the end of each course, we administered a written survey in which the participants rated the following items: their attitudes towards interprofessional learning (using the UWE-IP-D Interprofessional Learning Scale), the interprofessional learning setting, the teaching approach, and their competency acquisition (each on a five-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Furthermore, we assessed participants' qualitative feedback in free-text fields and performed inductive content analyses.
resultsThe study participation rate was high (response rate 97%; medical students: n = 75; healthcare students: n = 22). Participants stated high levels of competency acquisition (total M = 1.59, individual items' M's ranging from 1.20 to 2.05) and even higher satisfaction with the teaching approach (total M = 1.28, individual items' M's ranging from 1.43 to 1.05). Overall satisfaction with the training was M = 1.22; SD = 0.58. No significant differences in ratings were found between the student groups. The qualitative results showed that students appreciated the interprofessional setting and experienced it as enriching. The most positive feedback was found in didactics/teaching methods on role-plays and group work; most suggestions for improvement were found in the area of structure and organisation on breaks and time management.
conclusionsOpening up an existing medical tutor qualification program to other student groups can be seen as fruitful to teach not only tutor-related aspects but also interprofessional competencies. The results demonstrate the importance of detailed planning that considers group composition and contextual conditions and provides interactive teaching methods to promote interprofessional experiences. This study offers important information about prerequisites and methodological implementation that could be important for the interprofessional redesign of existing training programs.
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.