ArticleCureus2026
Standardized Near-Peer Clinical Skills Training for Seven Student-Run Clinics: Assessing Impact on Student Confidence.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background First-year medical students volunteering in student-run clinics (SRCs) often perform clinical skills before they are formally introduced in the curriculum. At some institutions, students are trained on an ad hoc basis by individual clinics without centralized oversight or quality control. Near-peer teaching models have shown promise in practical skills training and may benefit pre-clerkship learners prior to volunteering at SRCs. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a standardized and centrally coordinated near-peer clinical skills curriculum (including modules on Vital Signs, History Taking and Patient Presentations, and Physical Exam) improved medical students' self-reported confidence for SRC work across seven different clinics. Methods Three standardized training modules (Vital Signs, History Taking and Patient Presentations, and Physical Exam) were developed and facilitated by near-peer educators. Each module consisted of didactic instruction followed by hands-on practice and assessment, with close guidance from near-peer trainers. First-year students completed surveys pre-training, post-training, and two months after training ("post-clinic") that assessed self-reported confidence and perceived effectiveness of the training model using 5-point Likert scales. Results There were highly significant confidence improvements across all three training modules (p<0.01). Vital signs confidence increased from 2.69 pre-training to 4.60 post-training (paired n=65) and held at 4.48 post-clinic (paired n=25). History taking and patient presentation confidence increased from 3.03 pre-training to 4.44 post-training (paired n=59) and held at 4.17 post-clinic (paired n=18). Physical exam confidence increased from 2.08 pre-training to 4.46 post-training (paired n=26); post-clinic response rate was insufficient for meaningful analysis. Across the three training modules, all students agreed that the near-peer teaching model was effective for learning how to perform the respective clinical skills, with 92.3% of students in the Vital Signs training (n=65), 86.4% in the History Taking and Patient Presentations training (n=59), and 80.8% in the Physical Exam training (n=26) strongly agreeing. Conclusions Standardized clinical skills training led by near-peer educators significantly improves confidence across three core domains for first-year medical students volunteering at multiple SRCs. This scalable model empowers near-peer educators to create accessible learning environments that supplement the curriculum. Future work will include objective clinical performance assessments to validate whether self-reported confidence translates to enhanced clinical skill competence and improved patient outcomes.
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.