ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Peer-led learning: a novel approach to promote rural healthcare interest among medical students.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- The effect of a modified Peyton's four-step teaching method on orthokeratology skills: an experimental study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A persistent maldistribution of medical workforce exists across Canada, with rural areas facing a greater physician shortage. Medical education can be instrumental to increase physicians in rural communities, and medical schools have adapted strategies to generate interest in rural careers among medical students. Many of these efforts occur within formal structured curriculum. This study appraises the effectiveness of peer-led learning (PLL) as a novel approach in rural medical education to provide students with a better understanding of rural life and rural medical practice. Methods: This is mixed methods study using a survey and follow-up focus group discussion to evaluate a day-long educational experience organized and led by a medical student to their rural community. Quantitative data were summarized with descriptive statistics. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative insights to describe the students' experiences and perceptions about the educational rural day. Results: Of 54 participants, 50 completed the survey and 13 consented for the follow-up focus group. Most (78%) were female, have non-rural origins (78%), with only 2 having Indigenous status. Majority (61%) have low familiarity with rural medicine. Trustworthiness scores for information about rural life and medical practice were higher for rural-origin peers and rural-origin faculty compared to other sources of information such as government websites, social media, and traditional media. Thematic analysis yielded three main themes: (i) informal teaching facilitated learning, (ii) trust in their peer enabled students to receive information more favorably, and (iii) students gained a better understanding of rural life and medical practice. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that medical students engage differently with peer-led learning activities about rural medical curriculum versus a formal teaching environment. Medical students are cautious about promotional information regarding rural medical education from formal sources but are less skeptical when learning from peers. Information about the way of life and healthcare needs in rural communities may be perceived as more credible and valid if coming from a peer, and hence, is more likely to be received favorably. Thus, when promoting rural education and careers, medical schools should work with rural-origin students, whose messaging may be considered more trustworthy than traditional sources.
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.