Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42682807›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical education and curricular development

Peer Learning in Medical and Health Professions Education: Evidence, Design Principles, and Pedagogical Reflection.

Adrian Elmi-Terander

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Adrian Elmi-TeranderDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3776-6136

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peer learning is a collaborative approach grounded in social constructivist theory, emphasizing that knowledge is co-created through interaction. In medical education, it promotes active engagement, critical thinking, and professional identity formation. Within the author's research group, PhD students in the field of neurosurgery and medical students working on their undergraduate medical research projects, benefit from structured peer learning by sharing expertise, discussing challenges, and providing feedback. This aligns with communities of practice theory, where learning occurs through participation in a shared domain, and with Topping's framework highlighting peer tutoring as a reciprocal process that enhances cognitive and social development. Recent studies demonstrate that peer assisted learning improves clinical knowledge, practical skills acquisition, and learner engagement compared with traditional teaching approaches. These effects appear particularly strong in clinical and applied contexts, with evidence suggesting retention beyond the immediate learning period and improved transfer to performance. Integrating peer learning as a deliberate strategy strengthens academic outcomes and fosters lifelong learning skills. The Kirkpatrick framework can be used to evaluate the design, implementation, and outcomes of peer learning (PL) interventions. In line with these traditions, recent work in Academic Medicine has clarified mechanisms through which longitudinal near-peer learning operates-structured preparation, dynamic role-shifting during joint encounters, and post-encounter debriefing within trusted relationships-offering concrete practices that can be translated into the proposed setting.

Indexed as

clinical reasoningevaluationfeedbackmedical educationpeer assisted learningpeer learning

Identifiers

PMID42682807
PMCPMC13530466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.