Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39749060›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Reflecting on Peer Feedback in Problem-Based Learning: Implementing a Group Function Tool.

Matthew Mellon, Hanna Van Dierdonck, Leo Morjaria, Keyna Bracken, Matthew Sibbald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 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

5 authors.

Matthew MellonMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Hanna Van DierdonckMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Leo MorjariaMedicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Keyna BrackenFamily Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.
Matthew SibbaldCardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, CAN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Self-directed peer feedback is integral to the problem-based learning (PBL) process, but poorly scaffolded feedback processes can be inefficient and ineffective and there is little guidance on how students should structure these processes. This study aims to identify implementation considerations for a group function reflection tool and explore group feedback behaviours around the operationalization of the tool. Methods We conducted a qualitative study informed by direct content analysis using the group function reflection tool and conducted semi-structured focus groups in 2024 with 24 medical students and two tutors participating in a PBL curriculum. Students conducted peer feedback using the tool over four weeks, submitted feedback through an online form, and reflected on their experiences in focus groups. We analyzed feedback responses and transcripts in a staged approach, sensitized by three frameworks: the Human Factors Framework, the Task-Gap-Action model of feedback, and

Indexed as

group functionhealth-professions educationlearning toolpeer feedbackproblem-based learning

Identifiers

PMID39749060
PMCPMC11694494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.