ArticleBMC medical education2025
An action research study on the needs and perspectives of medical students and junior residents on peer physical examination guidelines to respect medical students' autonomy and privacy in Japan.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study is to develop and refine PPE guidelines that address students' needs and concerns for the Peer Physical Examination (PPE) guidelines and to assess the feasibility of a Japanese version of such guidelines for managing PPE classes.
methodAn action research approach was employed. Firstly, we sent a Questionnaire Survey 1 to the 5th and 6th year undergraduate medical students and junior residents to gather participants' expectations and suggested improvements for PPEs and their opinion about having a set of PPE guidelines. We drafted a set of PPE guidelines with reference to PPE policies overseas by reflecting participants' needs as identified through Questionnaire Survey 1. We then conducted interviews of 16 participants and revised our guidelines accordingly. Finally, we asked 632 medical students and 191 junior residents to fill out the form for obtaining informed consent (Questionnaire Survey 2) in order to check the feasibility of our PPE guidelines.
resultThe majority of the participants supported the development of the PPE guidelines. The interviews identified 5 themes relating to participants' needs and concerns. In a pilot survey, students' refusal rate for being a model patient varied depending on body region and 74.2% had a desire to be informed of any abnormal findings confidentially. Additionally, the need to take a balance between respecting students' autonomy and securing model patients was noted.
conclusionMedical students and junior residents generally supported the PPE guidelines. The right to refuse the model patient role and management of incidental findings should be included in the guidelines. In addition, informing students of educational benefits in being a model patient may be necessary to address the shortage of model patients.
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.