MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413102025 · doi:10.4103/cjrm.cjrm_41_24

Peer coaching in a rural setting: A feasibility study

2025· article· en· W4413102025 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Rural Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreCARE CanadaRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingPsychologyPeer reviewApplied psychologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.363 · 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