Board #117 - Research Abstract Peer Teaching
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Hypothesis A resident’s first lumbar puncture (LP) often occurs in a high-stakes environment where patient management depends on its success. Unfortunately, most junior residents do not achieve the competency level required for this important skill. Simulation with deliberate practice may be an important instructional method to facilitate skill development in trainees, but is often restricted due to human resource limitations. If students could learn equally well from peer teaching (as compared to instructor led teaching) this could enable medical schools an opportunity to increase the pool of instructors and the amount of teaching it can provide. The main objectives of this pilot study were: 1) To determine if students taught LP skills by their peers perform as well on a simulated LP task trainer as students taught by experts; and 2) To determine if teaching peers results in improved performance of the student doing the teaching. Methods We conducted a block randomized trial comparing three groups of third year medical students’ LP skill acquisition at the Montreal Children’s Hospital. Students (n=60) were given two 30 minute sessions with the LP task trainer . Group 1 (control group, n=20) was initially taught via deliberate practice by an expert and then had 30 minutes of self-guided practice. Group 2 (student teachers, n=20) were similarly taught by an expert and then had 30 minutes to teach a peer. Group 3 (peer taught, n=20) was taught by group 2 and then given an additional 30 minutes of self-guided practice. All students had an equal amount of time with the task trainer. Assessments of students were conducted 4-6 weeks after training with a previously validated 15-point checklist by an assessor blinded to group allocation. The main outcome measure was the mean score on the 15-point checklist compared using independent sample t-tests. Results The mean score of students taught by an expert (i.e. group 1) was 11.9 (SD 2.2) and those taught by their peers (i.e. group 3) was 11.7 (SD 2.0); the difference between groups was not statistically significant (p=0.83). Moreover, the mean score of students who taught their peers (i.e. group 2) was 12.9 (SD 1.9); there was no statistically significant difference when compared to group 1 (p=0.13). Conclusion The students taught by their peers achieved the same degree of competency as students taught by experts. This could potentially provide medical schools with valuable new resources for teaching. We did not observe a benefit to the learner from, ‘teaching the skill’ to their peers as compared to practicing on their own, though the study may have been underpowered to detect a small difference. Disclosures None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».