ArticleAnatomical sciences education2025
Evaluating group dynamics through peer assessment during a global student collaboration of interprofessional healthcare education: A longitudinal study across 33 universities.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical students' examinations during the pandemic: Performance and perceptions of anatomy teaching and learning before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdowns.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Evaluating group dynamics through peer assessment during a global student collaboration of interprofessional healthcare education: A longitudinal study across 33 universities.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the advent of healthcare globalization, interprofessional collaboration has become increasingly important on an international scale. This longitudinal study evaluated group dynamics in the International Collaboration and Exchange Program, a global online program of students across 33 universities from diverse healthcare backgrounds, including medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, and biomedical science. In groups of 4 to 6, participants engaged in regular discussions and projects relating to anatomy education and global health. Peer assessment was used to determine (1) whether a relationship existed between group cohesiveness and disparities in individual contribution levels and (2) whether group cohesiveness and individual contribution levels changed over time across varying group sizes. Two student cohorts were studied using the Individual Peer Assessment of Contribution methodology. Peer assessment surveys were distributed at two time points for the first (2021-2022) and second (2022-2023) cohorts, respectively, yielding 423 responses from 126 groups. Collaboration quality and effectiveness were evaluated through numerical ratings and qualitative feedback. Peer assessment is a viable tool for evaluating the dynamics of group interactions in virtual collaboration on a global scale. A reduction in group cohesiveness was associated with greater imbalances in individual contribution levels (r = -0.71, p < 0.001). Furthermore, larger groups (n = 6 students) demonstrated improved cohesiveness and equality in individual contribution levels over time compared to smaller groups (n = 4 students). This study on international healthcare student collaboration provides insights into sociocultural and educational factors impacting virtual group interactions and offers strategies for enhancing interprofessional collaborative practices in global health education.
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.