Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38835810›Full record

ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2024

Practicing Peer Physical Examination by Medical and Allied Health Professions Students: Why the Hesitation and Where are We Now? A Narrative Literature Review.

Noor Al-Chalabi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Noor Al-ChalabiFaculty of Life Sciences and Education, The University of South Wales Prifysgol De Cymru, Pontypridd, South Wales, UK.ORCID 0009-0000-5488-9309

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This narrative review aimed to examine the common existing factors that can influence medical students' attitudes and acceptability of peer physical examination, the presence of any variations of such attitudes over the time period included in the review, and provide measures to improve the acceptability of this practice, and directs attention to future research. Methods: This study utilized a systematic and comprehensive search technique to find relevant publications based on pre-defined eligibility criteria. Electronic searches were conducted using two search engines, PubMed and Google Scholar, with an additional manual search on Medical Teacher Journal. In addition, a critical evaluation tool was applied to critically assess each article. Results: Evidence indicated that gender is consistently reported as the most influential factor affecting the acceptance of peer physical examination among healthcare professionals, independent of the presence of other factors. Essentially, conservative cultures, religion, and particular ethnicities are still exerting their impacts on the participant's willingness to participate in this activity. In addition, the current study found no significant variations in accepting this practice by the students over the reviewed period of time. Conclusion: According to the evidence provided by this review, a number of possible recommendations should be considered to boost and optimize the applicability of PPE. These include starting with non-sensitive areas, using single-gender pairing, and considering cultural and religious beliefs. Finally, there is a pressing need for future research, including multi-centric studies with larger and more diverse samples.

Indexed as

acceptanceattitudemedical studentspeer  physical examinationwillingness

Identifiers

PMID38835810
PMCPMC11149644

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.