ArticleCureus2024
Implementation and Outcomes of an Academic Peer Coaching Program for Pediatric Residents.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Exploring peer coaching needs in a pediatrics residency program with faculty coaching.BMC medical education · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Academic coaching fosters self-directed learning and is growing in popularity within residency programs. Implementation is often limited by available faculty time and funding. Peer coaching is an emerging alternative but is not well studied. This study aims to demonstrate the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of a resident peer coaching program. Methodology In the 2021-2022 academic year, within a large pediatric residency program, we selected and trained senior residents as coaches and interns who opted in as coachees. Coaching dyads began meeting in the fall and worked toward individualized goals throughout the year; control interns participated in routine didactics. Outcomes included Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestone scores and a self-assessment survey (SAS). Results We enrolled 15/42 (36%) interns as coachees, with the remaining 27 (64%) as controls. Narrative feedback from coaches and coachees was overall positive, and time commitment was feasible for program staff (10-12 hours/month), coaches (three to four hours/month), and coachees (one to two hours/month) with minimal financial needs. Post-intervention, more coachees than controls scored ≥4.0 on ACGME milestones systems-based practice 3 (SBP3; 3/15, 20%, vs. 2/27, 7%), SBP4 (4/15, 27%, vs. 5/27, 19%), and practice-based learning and improvement 1 (4/15, 27%, vs. 3/27, 11%). SAS response rate was 8/15 (53%) for coachees and 5/27 (19%) for controls. More coachees than controls reported baseline difficulty with time management
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.