Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39342246›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Self and peer feedback engagement and receptivity among medical students with varied academic performance in the clinical skills laboratory.

Reina Abraham, Veena S Singaram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Reina AbrahamClinical and Professional Practice, School of Clinical Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4000, South Africa. abrahamr@ukzn.ac.za.
Veena S SingaramClinical and Professional Practice, School of Clinical Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4000, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical students benefit from direct observation of clinical performance and timely feedback from multiple sources. While self and peer feedback have been the focus of numerous research studies, how they influence feedback engagement and receptivity in medical students of varying achievement levels in the clinical skills laboratory setting remains relatively unexplored.

methodsWe conducted an exploratory qualitative study to investigate students' engagement and receptivity to self and peer feedback across academic performance levels at a medical teaching institution. Data from five focus groups with third-year medical students(n = 25) were thematically analysed.

resultsThe ways in which low and high performing students engaged with self-assessment and peer feedback were divided into three categories: affective (or interpersonal), orientational, and transformational. Lower achievers believed they lacked the necessary skills to effectively engage in self and peer feedback interventions, but they agreed with higher achievers who recognized that peer feedback combined with prior knowledge of learning objectives allowed them to take ownership of monitoring their own development over time. Learners' emotional maturity in response to feedback ratings and feedback from activities testing clinical cognition had an impact on self-regulated learning.

conclusionsCreating a trusting environment is critical for improving the acceptability of peer feedback. It is also critical to provide multiple opportunities for self-assessment in order to improve one's judgment. Giving learners the ability to actively seek and engage with feedback encourages participation in the feedback cycle, focusing on self-regulation rather than reliance on feedback providers. Feedback and action plan development can be improved by teaching students how to understand criticism, manage emotions constructively, and practice developing evaluative judgment and self-regulation skills. Based on the study findings an integrated three stage training model is recommended for effective self- and peer feedback practice for undergraduate medical education.

Indexed as

Academic PerformanceClinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFocus GroupsPeer GroupSelf-AssessmentStudents, MedicalFeedbackFemaleFormative FeedbackHumansMaleQualitative ResearchClinical skills laboratoryEducational feedback interventionsFeedback engagementMedical educationPeer feedbackSelf-assessment feedback

Identifiers

PMID39342246
PMCPMC11439336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.