Benefits of semiology taught using near-peer tutoring are sustainable.
Clinical skills
Near-peer tutoring
Objective structured clinical examination
Semiology
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jan 2022
10 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
27
05
2021
accepted:
06
12
2021
entrez:
11
1
2022
pubmed:
12
1
2022
medline:
13
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Near-peer tutoring appears to be an efficient approach for teaching clinical skills. However, the clinical experience gained in the form of student medical internships may offset any interest in such tutoring programme. We then investigated the long-term benefits of this programme. This study was conducted in a medical school that experimented in near-peer tutoring for semiology intended for undergraduate medical students. Objective Structured Clinical Examinations and a written semiology test were used to assess students' clinical skills immediately on its conclusion and repeated one and 2 years after the tutoring was completed. 116 students were evaluated initially (80 tutored and 36 untutored), 38 at 1 year (16 tutored and 22 untutored), 42 at 2 years (21 tutored and 21 untutored). In the global score for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations: at 1 year, the tutored group scored 14.0 ± 1.05 and the untutored group scored 11.3 ± 2.3 (p < 0.001), at 2 years, the tutored group scored 15.1 ± 1.5 and the untutored group scored 12.4 ± 2.2 (p < 0.001). We found a similar but smaller difference for the written semiology test. The difference for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations between tutored and untutored students vanished over time for cross-cutting skills. Near-peer tutoring in semiology for undergraduate medical students led to better results that remained with the passing of time. Though internships do allow an improvement in the clinical skills of untutored students, they did not reach the level of tutored students.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Near-peer tutoring appears to be an efficient approach for teaching clinical skills. However, the clinical experience gained in the form of student medical internships may offset any interest in such tutoring programme. We then investigated the long-term benefits of this programme.
METHODS
METHODS
This study was conducted in a medical school that experimented in near-peer tutoring for semiology intended for undergraduate medical students. Objective Structured Clinical Examinations and a written semiology test were used to assess students' clinical skills immediately on its conclusion and repeated one and 2 years after the tutoring was completed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
116 students were evaluated initially (80 tutored and 36 untutored), 38 at 1 year (16 tutored and 22 untutored), 42 at 2 years (21 tutored and 21 untutored). In the global score for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations: at 1 year, the tutored group scored 14.0 ± 1.05 and the untutored group scored 11.3 ± 2.3 (p < 0.001), at 2 years, the tutored group scored 15.1 ± 1.5 and the untutored group scored 12.4 ± 2.2 (p < 0.001). We found a similar but smaller difference for the written semiology test. The difference for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations between tutored and untutored students vanished over time for cross-cutting skills.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Near-peer tutoring in semiology for undergraduate medical students led to better results that remained with the passing of time. Though internships do allow an improvement in the clinical skills of untutored students, they did not reach the level of tutored students.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35012540
doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-03086-9
pii: 10.1186/s12909-021-03086-9
pmc: PMC8744339
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
26Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Neurol. 2008 Dec;15(12):1365-70
pubmed: 19049555
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:29
pubmed: 31614406
GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2010;27(5):Doc71
pubmed: 21818216
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Mar 28;17(1):65
pubmed: 28351359
J Pak Med Assoc. 2019 Feb;69(2):235-240
pubmed: 30804590
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):553-7
pubmed: 17978968
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:14
pubmed: 31129947
Rev Med Interne. 2015 May;36(5):312-8
pubmed: 25458867
Clin Anat. 2017 Oct;30(7):922-928
pubmed: 28726243
Ultraschall Med. 2020 Feb;41(1):36-43
pubmed: 31745964
Acad Med. 2006 Oct;81(10 Suppl):S40-3
pubmed: 17001132
Med Teach. 2009 Feb;31(2):e32-5
pubmed: 19330661
Acad Med. 2004 Mar;79(3):276-80
pubmed: 14985204
J Neurol Sci. 2018 Aug 15;391:143-148
pubmed: 29910128
Med Teach. 2016;38(2):168-73
pubmed: 25909896
Med Educ. 2002 May;36(5):472-8
pubmed: 12028398
West J Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;19(1):177-184
pubmed: 29383078
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010 Mar;15(1):109-128
pubmed: 18274876
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Aug;13(3):361-72
pubmed: 17124627
BMC Med Educ. 2005 Apr 01;5(1):11
pubmed: 15804360
BMC Med Educ. 2013 Dec 11;13:165
pubmed: 24325639
Int J Med Educ. 2016 Jun 12;7:188-94
pubmed: 27295403
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Apr 08;14:73
pubmed: 24712683
Cureus. 2021 Jul 16;13(7):e16416
pubmed: 34422460
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Oct 13;14:217
pubmed: 25306897
Med Educ. 2014 Jul;48(7):698-704
pubmed: 24909531
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):591-9
pubmed: 17922354
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;204(6):542.e1-4
pubmed: 21411056
Med Educ. 1999 Aug;33(8):600-5
pubmed: 10447847
Lancet. 2003 Oct 4;362(9390):1100-5
pubmed: 14550696