Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37455859›Full record

ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2023

Peer Teaching in Undergraduate Medical Education: What are the Learning Outputs for the Student-Teachers? A Systematic Review.

Mohammed Anass Tanveer, Thomas Mildestvedt, Idun Grimstad Skjærseth, Harlad Haugsmyr Arntzen, Ellinor Kenne, Anna Bonnevier, Terese Stenfors, Monika Kvernenes

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohammed Anass TanveerCenter for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8849-8920
Thomas MildestvedtDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Idun Grimstad SkjærsethCenter for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6566-5458
Harlad Haugsmyr ArntzenCenter for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Ellinor KenneDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2784-5244
Anna BonnevierDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Division for Learning, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Terese StenforsDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Division for Learning, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0854-8631
Monika KvernenesCenter for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
University of Bergen · NOKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: To achieve quality in medical education, peer teaching, understood as students taking on roles as educators for peers, is frequently used as a teaching intervention. While the benefits of peer teaching for learners and faculty are described in detail in the literature, less attention is given to the learning outputs for the student-teachers. This systematic review focuses on the learning outputs for medical undergraduates acting as student-teachers in the last decade (2012-2022). Aim: Our aim is to describe what learning outputs student-teachers have from peer teaching, and map what research methods are used to assess the outputs. We defined learning outputs in a broad sense, including all types of learning experiences, intended and non-intended, associated with being a peer teacher. Methods: A literature search was conducted in four electronic databases. Title, abstract and full text were screened by 8 independent reviewers and selection was based on predefined eligibility criteria. We excluded papers not describing structured peer teaching interventions with student-teachers in a formalized role. From the included articles we extracted information about the learning outputs of being a student-teacher as medical undergraduate. Results: From 668 potential titles, 100 were obtained as full-texts, and 45 selected after close examination, group deliberation, updated search and quality assessment using MERSQI score (average score 10/18). Most articles reported learning outputs using mixed methods (67%). Student-teachers reported an increase in subject-specific learning (62%), pedagogical knowledge and skills (49%), personal outputs (31%) and generic skills (38%). Most articles reported outputs using self-reported data (91%). Conclusion: Although there are few studies that systematically investigate student-teachers learning outputs, evidence suggests that peer teaching offers learning outputs for the student-teachers and helps them become better physicians. Further research is needed to enhance learning outputs for student-teachers and systematically investigate student-teachers' learning outputs and its impact on student-teachers.

Indexed as

medical schoolmedical studentpeer-assisted learningpeer teacher

Identifiers

PMID37455859
PMCPMC10349571
OpenAlexW4383878826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.