ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026
Implementation and utilization of Physical Examination Teaching Associate (PETA) programs: a scoping review.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2026. 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.
- Association of SP Educators (ASPE) Physical Examination Teaching Associate (PETA) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP).Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Implementation and utilization of Physical Examination Teaching Associate (PETA) programs: a scoping review.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 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
backgroundPhysical Examination Teaching Associates (PETAs) are individuals trained to instruct health professional learners regarding the technical and communication skills to conduct physical examinations. PETAs refer to their body to instruct and provide feedback in a supportive, non-threatening environment. Such programs are highly rated by learners and support learner outcomes, but implementation and utilization characteristics vary widely. This scoping review aims to review the literature addressing (1) the broad outcomes of PETA programs, (2) the utilization of PETA programs to instruct, and (3) the implementation of Domains of the ASPE SOBP and ASPE GTA/MUTA SOBP within PETA programs.
methodsPubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts were searched to identify all publications addressing the administration of PETA programs and/or engagement of PETAs in instructional sessions. Studies were charted in tandem using an iterative process aligned with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. The scoping review protocol was registered prospectively.
resultsThirty-four studies were identified. Most articles were from the United States and highlighted positive PETA program-level outcomes and learner outcomes. PETAs most frequently instructed individuals or groups of four second-year medical students learning the musculoskeletal examination. Half of the articles discussed engaging with PETAs with stable pre-existing pathology. Nearly all addressed some information related to the Domains of the ASPE SOBP and/or ASPE GTA/MUTA SOBP. Only two articles referred to the individual(s) engaging in the PETA role as a PETA.
conclusionPETA programs have published positive outcomes for over 45 years. This scoping review reports on the available evidence highlighting the program structure and instructional patterns represented in the literature and the importance of consistent terminology and role description, alignment with publication standards, and implementation of the relevant ASPE SOBP. REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/rj5wp/ .
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.