Peer coaching in a rural setting: A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peer coaching has gained traction as a method for enhancing practical and personal skills without the hierarchical dynamic sometimes found in mentorship. It creates a collaborative environment, encourages inclusivity and community building, and supports skill development across various disciplines and levels of experience. The objective of our study was to assess the feasibility, satisfaction, and effects of a reciprocal peer coaching pilot program for practising physicians in Northern Ontario's remote and rural regions. METHODS: Participants completed 'Peer coaching in practice' micromodules from The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and attended an in-person demonstration. Each participant committed to 2 sessions as both coach and coachee with a self-selected partner. Feedback was gathered at each study interval. RESULTS: Our qualitative study found that peer coaching positively impacted physicians' daily habits, wellness, and professional growth. The study emphasised the importance of cohesive partnerships in peer coaching and highlighted substantial benefits for both coaches and coachees. The feasibility of peer coaching was a key finding, demonstrating its potential to build supportive communities, particularly for providers in remote areas. While in-person interaction was preferred, the study also acknowledged the potential of virtual coaching, which could benefit providers isolated by geography, demographics, or practice modality. CONCLUSION: Peer coaching is an alternative, novel form of continuing medical education and knowledge exchange. It is particularly relevant in rural communities offering crucial support to local providers, especially those in rural or isolated areas where access to formal continued medical education is limited. Our results suggest that peer coaching can significantly improve the daily practices and overall well-being of physicians. INTRODUCTION: Le coaching entre pairs s'est imposé comme une méthode permettant d'améliorer les compétences pratiques et personnelles sans la dynamique hiérarchique que l'on retrouve parfois dans le mentorat. Il crée un environnement collaboratif, favorise l'inclusion et le développement communautaire, tout en soutenant le développement des compétences dans diverses disciplines et à différents niveaux d'expérience. L'objectif de cette étude était d'évaluer la faisabilité, la satisfaction et les effets d'un programme pilote de coaching réciproque entre pairs destiné aux médecins en exercice dans les régions rurales et isolées du nord de l'Ontario. MTHODES: Les participants ont suivi les micromodules " Expérience Coaching entre pairs " du Collège royal des médecins et chirurgiens du Canada et ont assisté à une démonstration en personne. Chaque participant s'est engagé à participer à deux séances en tant que coach et aidé (e) avec un partenaire de son choix. Des commentaires ont été recueillis à chaque intervalle de l'étude. RSULTATS: Notre étude qualitative a révélé que le coaching entre pairs avait un impact positif sur les habitudes quotidiennes, le bien-être et le développement professionnel des médecins. Elle a souligné l'importance de partenariats solides dans le cadre du coaching entre pairs et a mis en évidence des avantages substantiels tant pour les coachs que pour les aidés. La faisabilité du coaching entre pairs a été une conclusion clé, démontrant son potentiel pour créer des communautés solidaires, en particulier pour les prestataires de soins dans les zones isolées. Bien que les interactions en personne aient été préférées, l'étude a également reconnu le potentiel du coaching virtuel qui pourrait bénéficier aux prestataires isolés par la géographie, la démographie ou leur mode d'exercice. CONCLUSION: Le coaching entre pairs est une forme alternative et novatrice de formation médicale continue et d'échange de connaissances. Il est particulièrement pertinent dans les communautés rurales où il offre un soutien crucial aux prestataires locaux, en particulier ceux des zones rurales ou isolées où l'accès à une formation médicale continue formelle est limité. Nos résultats suggèrent que le coaching entre pairs peut améliorer considérablement les pratiques quotidiennes et le bien-être général des médecins.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".