ArticleJMIR medical education2022
Evaluation of Online Near-Peer Teaching for Penultimate-Year Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in the COVID-19 Era: Longitudinal Study.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions from a Single Virtual Near-Peer Mock SBA Examination: A Retrospective Pre-Post Study Among Undergraduate Medical Students.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring the Educational Value of Popular Culture in Web-Based Medical Education: Pre-Post Study on Teaching Jaundice Using "The Simpsons".JMIR medical education · 2023Article
- Psychological need fulfillment in virtual teaching: insights of residents and faculty.International journal of medical education · 2023Article
- Peer Teaching in Undergraduate Medical Education: What are the Learning Outputs for the Student-Teachers? A Systematic Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefits of near-peer learning are well established in several aspects of undergraduate medical education including preparing students for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a paradigm shift to predominantly online teaching.
objectiveThis study aims to demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of an exclusively online near-peer OSCE teaching program in a time of significant face-to-face and senior-led teaching shortage.
methodsA teaching program was delivered to penultimate-year students by final-year students at Manchester Medical School. Program development involved compiling a list of salient topics and seeking senior faculty approval. Teachers and students were recruited on Facebook. In total, 22 sessions and 42 talks were attended by 72 students and taught by 13 teachers over a 3-month period. Data collection involved anonymous weekly questionnaires and 2 separate anonymous student and teacher postcourse questionnaires including both quantitative and qualitative components.
resultsOn a scale of 1-10, students rated the quality of the program highly (mean 9.30, SD 1.15) and felt the sessions were highly useful in guiding their revision (mean 8.95, SD 0.94). There was a significant increase in perceived confidence ratings after delivery of the program (P<.001). Teachers felt the program helped them better understand and retain the subject material taught (mean 9.36, SD 0.81) and develop skills to become effective clinical teachers (mean 9.27, SD 0.79).
conclusionsThis is the first study demonstrating the efficacy of a near-peer OSCE teaching program delivered exclusively online. This provides an exemplary framework for how similar programs should be encouraged given their efficacy and logistical viability in supplementing the undergraduate curriculum.
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.