Peer teachers as ultrasound instructors? – a systematic literature review of peer teaching concepts in undergraduate ultrasound education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: As ultrasound is one of the most utilized imaging procedures in clinical practice in Germany, its integration into undergraduate medical education is imperative. Thereby, the limited availability of qualified instructors is a major challenge. Peer tutors, who are trained to instruct their peers collaboratively, could resolve staff constraints. This systematic review explores the literature on peer teaching in undergraduate ultrasound education, aiming to provide an overview of methodologies, outcomes, and peer teacher training concepts. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review was conducted on the subject of peer teaching in undergraduate ultrasound education. Using PubMed and Google Scholar as databases, studies in English or German involving training concepts for peer teachers in undergraduate ultrasound education, published up to November 21, 2023, were included. Data extraction of original studies followed the PICOS schema with special respect to didactic concepts of peer tutor training programs and the effectiveness of peer teachers compared to faculty instructors. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies. RESULTS: Finally, the search resulted in 20 relevant original studies, including 16 studies exploring peer teacher training concepts. Predominantly, peer teachers studied in their 4th year of medical school and on average one year further compared to their students. Peer teacher training was integrated into curricula by course-based concepts (93.8%) and internships (50.0%). Didactic modalities varied, encompassing laboratory rotations including the scanning of patients, the scanning of fellow students, lectures, and didactic training. The median training duration was about ten days. Of six comparative studies, five found peer-assisted learning to be comparably effective and one even better than faculty-led courses. CONCLUSION: Despite the growing amount of literature underlining the effectiveness and wide application of peer teaching in ultrasound education, training concepts stay heterogenous without a standardized system for training and qualifying peer teachers. Developing comprehensive guidelines for peer tutor education could increase acceptance and recognition of peer-assisted learning and ensure minimum training standards.
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 | 0,006 | 0,158 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».