ArticleBMC medical education2026
The value of a peer-to-peer teaching community in medical education.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Medical Education Society (MedED) at Imperial College School of Medicine (ICSM) offers near-peer educational opportunities across all years of medical school. Near-peer education has demonstrated significant benefits in medical education. However, studies have yet to explore the value of establishing a peer-to-peer teaching community.
methodsMedical students who participated in MedED as student-attendees or student-teachers during the academic year 2022-23 were invited to participate in a survey and follow-up interview, exploring their experiences within the Society. Survey data was collected anonymously through Qualtrics, and interviews were held on Microsoft Teams. Quantitative survey data was analysed using descriptive statistics, while interview transcripts and free-text survey responses underwent inductive thematic analysis.
resultsA total of 66 students completed the survey, with 19 (28.8%) from years 1-2 and 47 (71.2%) from years 3-6. Early-year students had higher lecture attendance rates (79%) compared to later-year students (34%), and both groups preferred online rather than in-person lectures (both > 50%). For student-attendees, benefits of participating in MedED included improving knowledge, motivation and sense of community. Among student-teachers, main motivations for teaching included helping others and developing transferrable skills. A total of 13 participants were interviewed, including 5 who were both student-attendees and student-teachers. Three themes emerged: academic value, highlighting knowledge and skills gained through MedED; career prospects, focusing on long-term professional benefits; and sense of community and wellbeing, emphasising the positive social interactions and support networks fostered through MedED.
conclusionMedED provides student-led teaching initiatives that supplement the formal curriculum, enhancing student confidence and inclusivity, and fostering a sustainable community of peer-education. Beyond immediate academic values, this community has also created longer-term, personal and professional impacts on students, including broadening career aspirations. This work highlights opportunities for further development through student-staff collaborations and the role of peer communities in supporting student wellbeing.
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.