Bantounou Maria Anna, Kumar Niraj
School of Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
National Medical Research Association (NMRA), London, UK.
Med Sci Educ. 2023 Jun 15;33(4):935-943. doi: 10.1007/s40670-023-01818-8. eCollection 2023 Aug.
To enhance doctors' engagement with research, the National Medical Research Association (NMRA) developed a research teaching series, delivering peer-led (PL) sessions by medical students and conventional teacher-led (CL) sessions by licenced physicians/lecturers. We assessed the effectiveness of the series and compared the PL and CL approaches.
The teaching sessions were delivered virtually via Zoom weekly either PL or CL. Feedback was provided by participants on completion of every session using a 10-point Likert scale assessing their knowledge pre- and post-training.
A total of 87 participants were included generating 782 feedback forms, 367 (47.1%) for PL and 412 for CL sessions. The median knowledge scores significantly increased following each session (-value < 0.05) independent of teaching approach. An overall improvement in the median knowledge score from all sessions from 5/10 to 8/10 was reported. There was no significant difference between knowledge gained from the CL or PL teaching.
Didactic PL research training sessions are equally effective as CL sessions.
为提高医生对研究的参与度,国家医学研究协会(NMRA)开发了一个研究教学系列,包括由医学生主导的同伴教学(PL)课程和由有执照的医生/讲师主导的传统教师教学(CL)课程。我们评估了该系列课程的有效性,并比较了PL和CL两种教学方法。
教学课程通过Zoom每周以PL或CL的形式进行线上授课。参与者在每节课结束时使用10分制李克特量表提供反馈,评估他们培训前后的知识水平。
共纳入87名参与者,收集到782份反馈表,其中PL课程367份(47.1%),CL课程412份。无论教学方法如何,每次课程后中位数知识得分均显著提高(P值<0.05)。据报告,所有课程的中位数知识得分从5/10总体提高到了8/10。CL教学和PL教学所获得的知识之间没有显著差异。
指导性的PL研究培训课程与CL课程同样有效。