ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Comparison of Medical Students' Peer Evaluation and Teaching Staff Evaluation of Community Health Projects: Perceptions and Experiences.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Public health education increasingly emphasizes experiential learning and community engagement. Peer review complements traditional staff evaluation, enhancing learning outcomes and refining teaching strategies. This study aims to investigate the perceptions and experiences of medical students with peer evaluation of community health projects. Staff evaluation for the same projects will be used for comparison. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study involving medical students from the epidemiology and community health course at the College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU). Students assessed their peers' community health projects using a self-administered questionnaire. Staff evaluations were also compared. Data was analyzed by IBM SPSS 29. Results: The study included 187 participants, primarily medical students (98.3%), who evaluated 20 community health projects. Three teaching staff members also rated the same projects. Medical students ranked effort expended (4.34), topic importance (4.26), and apparent participation (4.26) in descending order of value. The Staff evaluated the topic's relevance as the highest (4.43), but they rated the tools as lower (3.9). Medical students ranked tools sufficiency significantly higher, with a mean of (4.16 vs 3.90) than Staff (p <0.05). Both groups evaluated the project's level of innovation and the clarity of its target audience in a comparable manner. The analysis of the Full Project Level indicated no substantial disparity between medical students and Staff, as evidenced by the p-value of 0.920. Conclusion: This study validates that peer evaluation of student projects is equally practical as evaluation conducted by faculty members. Consequently, allocating resources toward enhancing peer students' learning and evaluation capabilities is justifiable.
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.