ArticleInternational journal of pediatrics2024
Peer Learning Has Double Effects in Clinical Research Education: A Qualitative Study.
Article in International journal of pediatrics, 2024. 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.
- Drivers and Outcomes of Engagement in Non-Formal Special Interest Groups Among Japanese Emergency Physicians: An Activity Theory Analysis.AEM education and training · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peer learning has been recognized for its effectiveness in health professional education. However, its effects on clinical research education are not clear and were explored qualitatively in this study. Methods: The peer-learning method was implemented in a clinical research education seminar for early-career physicians at a children's and mothers' hospital in 2019. We conducted semistructured interviews with participants about peer-learning experience and qualitatively analyzed verbatim transcripts using Engeström's "activity theory" framework. Results: From framework analysis, learning processes were extracted mainly in four domains, namely, (a) instrument and its usage: research design and its match with research question, (b) outcome: research result, (c) community: seminar, and (d) division of labor: roles of participants and staff. Conclusions: In this report of a peer-learning trial in postgraduate clinical research education, the following two pathways of peer-learning effects were abstracted. The indirect pathway was the presentations by experienced participants providing concrete examples of research processes. The direct pathway was the questions from experienced participants to beginners about specific and concrete questions. There were also two points to consider in peer learning in clinical research education: gaps in premise knowledge and beginners' frustration about expected outcomes. We believe that these extracted pathways and points imply the significance and considerations for continuing the peer-learning trial in clinical research education. Future tasks are to promote clinical research education with a view to the learning effects, not only on individuals, but also on groups.
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.