Mahmoud Mahmoud A, Almutairi Zaid Saud, Mahmoud Abdulrahman M, Alanazi Hind Bashir, Abdulrahman Sundus M, Bin Abdulrahman Khalid A
Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2025 Jan 25;16:99-108. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S494025. eCollection 2025.
Public health education increasingly emphasizes experiential learning and community engagement. Peer review complements traditional staff evaluation, enhancing learning outcomes and refining teaching strategies. This study aims to investigate the perceptions and experiences of medical students with peer evaluation of community health projects. Staff evaluation for the same projects will be used for comparison.
A cross-sectional survey study involving medical students from the epidemiology and community health course at the College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU). Students assessed their peers' community health projects using a self-administered questionnaire. Staff evaluations were also compared. Data was analyzed by IBM SPSS 29.
The study included 187 participants, primarily medical students (98.3%), who evaluated 20 community health projects. Three teaching staff members also rated the same projects. Medical students ranked effort expended (4.34), topic importance (4.26), and apparent participation (4.26) in descending order of value. The Staff evaluated the topic's relevance as the highest (4.43), but they rated the tools as lower (3.9). Medical students ranked tools sufficiency significantly higher, with a mean of (4.16 vs 3.90) than Staff (p <0.05). Both groups evaluated the project's level of innovation and the clarity of its target audience in a comparable manner. The analysis of the Full Project Level indicated no substantial disparity between medical students and Staff, as evidenced by the p-value of 0.920.
This study validates that peer evaluation of student projects is equally practical as evaluation conducted by faculty members. Consequently, allocating resources toward enhancing peer students' learning and evaluation capabilities is justifiable.
公共卫生教育越来越强调体验式学习和社区参与。同行评审补充了传统的员工评估，提高了学习成果并完善了教学策略。本研究旨在调查医学生对社区卫生项目同行评估的看法和体验。将使用对相同项目的员工评估进行比较。
一项横断面调查研究，涉及伊玛目穆罕默德·本·沙特伊斯兰大学医学院（IMSIU）流行病学和社区卫生课程的医学生。学生使用自填式问卷评估他们同伴的社区卫生项目。还比较了员工评估。数据由IBM SPSS 29进行分析。
该研究包括187名参与者，主要是医学生（98.3%），他们评估了20个社区卫生项目。三名教学人员也对相同的项目进行了评分。医学生按价值降序排列所投入的努力（4.34）、主题重要性（4.26）和明显的参与度（4.26）。员工将主题的相关性评为最高（4.43），但他们对工具的评分较低（3.9）。医学生对工具充足性的排名明显更高，平均为（4.16对3.90），高于员工（p<0.05）。两组对项目的创新水平和目标受众的清晰度的评估方式相当。对整个项目水平的分析表明，医学生和员工之间没有实质性差异，p值为0.920证明了这一点。
本研究验证了学生项目的同行评估与教师进行的评估同样实用。因此，将资源用于提高同伴学生的学习和评估能力是合理的。
