MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224000738 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004704

Side-by-Side: A One-on-One Peer Support Program for Medical Students

2022· article· en· W4224000738 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kelsey Mongrain, Alexander Simmons, Isabel Shore, Xavier Prinja, Michael Reaume

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeer supportMedical educationEXPOSEPsychologyPeer groupMedicineNursingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: Medical students experience high levels of burnout and face barriers to accessing support services. However, few studies have considered the feasibility and/or effectiveness of one-on-one peer support programs for medical students. This report aims to describe the development and implementation of such a program, the Side-by-Side Peer Support Program, at the University of Ottawa (August 2018-June 2020). APPROACH: Thirty-five medical students enrolled at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine were selected to participate in a training course aimed at developing the skills necessary to provide one-on-one support to their peers. The main responsibilities of peer supporters were to reach out to classmates, particularly those displaying changes in their usual behavior that might be indicative of mental illness, to provide basic counseling, and to refer at-risk students to professional services. Peer supporters offered weekly hours during which classmates could contact them for support. Information on interactions between students and peer supporters was recorded in an electronic database. An end-of-year survey collected information on barriers to seeking help perceived by medical students. OUTCOMES: A total of 303 interactions were recorded. Interactions took place in various formats, including in-person, via telephone or video call, or via texting or online messaging. Interactions were initiated by both students and peer supporters. Survey respondents identified more barriers to seeking help from Faculty of Medicine services than Side-by-Side, including fear of impact on career (22.2% vs 2.5%; P < .01) and belief that the services would not be helpful (42.0% vs 23.5%; P = .02). NEXT STEPS: The authors plan to quantify well-being through academic engagement metrics as well as mental health outcome metrics in future studies. Future studies should also consider whether peer support increases help-seeking behaviors and/or the use of professional services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.411 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207