ArticleBMC medical education2026
Enhancing gynecological examination training for international medical students: a comparative study of peer role-play and peer assessment.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGynecological examination training for international medical students (IMS) presents unique challenges in cultural sensitivity, patient communication, and clinical skill acquisition. Traditional teaching methods often lack realistic patient interaction and immediate feedback, limiting student engagement and competency development.
objectiveTo evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of integrating peer role-playing simulation and peer assessment into a collaborative learning environment for teaching gynecological examination skills to IMS.
methodsA comparative study was conducted with two consecutive cohorts of IMS enrolled at Zhejiang University. The 2019 cohort (n = 72) received traditional collaborative group learning, while the 2020 cohort (n = 81) underwent an enhanced curriculum featuring instructor-led demonstration and peer role-playing simulation. Clinical competency, engagement levels and course satisfaction were compared between groups.
resultsThe 2020 cohort demonstrated significant improvements across multiple domains compared to the 2019 cohort. Specifically, the experimental group showed higher active participation rates (64.2% vs. 41.7%, p < 0.01) and course engagement (p < 0.05). While technical procedural proficiency was comparable between groups, the 2020 cohort achieved significantly higher scores in doctor-patient communication, humanistic care, and preoperative preparation (p < 0.05), with a notably large effect size observed for communication skills (Cohen’s d = 0.89).
conclusionThis exploratory study suggests supplementing traditional instruction with peer role-playing and assessment significantly enhances IMS engagement and non-technical clinical competencies (communication and empathy) without compromising technical skill acquisition. These findings support the feasibility of this cost-effective model in resource-limited educational settings and warrant further investigation with rigorous experimental designs.
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.