ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2025
Comparison of Practical Skills Teaching by Near-Peers and Faculty.
Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNear-peer teaching is a vital teaching resource in most medical schools, but little is known about the comparative benefits of near-peers and faculty teaching or the learning mechanisms that underlie them. This study explored near-peers' and students' perceptions of differences between the way near-peers and faculty teach practical skills.
methodUsing qualitative methods, the authors conducted 4 focus groups with near-peers (n = 22) and 4 focus groups with students (n = 26, years 3-6) at the University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, between September and December 2022. All participants recently participated in near-peer skills training. Vignettes of typical teaching situations guided the focus group discussions. The reflexive thematic analysis was both inductive and deductive; cognitive apprenticeship teaching methods informed the deductive analysis.
resultsThree major areas of difference were identified in near-peers and faculty skills teaching methods: (1) learning climate, (2) teaching orientation, and (3) reaction to identified competence gaps and students' questions. Near-peers were perceived to establish a safer learning climate than faculty, lowering the threshold to ask questions. Near-peer teaching was oriented toward the formal curriculum and students' learning needs, resulting in more tailored explanations focused on examination-relevant content. Faculty oriented their teaching toward clinical practice, which helped students transition to clinical practice but could overwhelm novice students. Faculty better stimulated students to think critically about unanswered questions and how to fill their competence gaps.
conclusionsSkills teaching by near-peers and faculty differed in teaching climate and orientation. Near-peers saw students as learners, focused on the learning climate and on students' needs. Faculty saw students as future physicians and facilitated the transition from curricular learning to clinical practice. Curricular design should capitalize on the complementary benefits of near-peer and faculty skills instructors and seek to get the best of both worlds.
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.