Opening up a tailored tutor qualification program for medical students to other healthcare students - a mixed-method study.
Interprofessional education
Peer teaching
Peer-assisted learning
Tutor qualification
Undergraduate education
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Apr 2022
06 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
06
07
2021
accepted:
28
03
2022
entrez:
7
4
2022
pubmed:
8
4
2022
medline:
9
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Peer-led tutorials are widely used in medical education to promote practical skills acquisition and support faculty staff. Typically, student tutors are custom trained for this specific task. We investigated whether opening up an existing medical tutor qualification program to other degree programs is successful in terms of acceptance among students, acquisition of tutor-specific and interprofessional competencies, and which factors contribute to success or failure. We developed a two-day tutor qualification program and conducted it annually from 2016 to 2020 with medical and other healthcare students. At the end of each course, we administered a written survey in which the participants rated the following items: their attitudes towards interprofessional learning (using the UWE-IP-D Interprofessional Learning Scale), the interprofessional learning setting, the teaching approach, and their competency acquisition (each on a five-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Furthermore, we assessed participants' qualitative feedback in free-text fields and performed inductive content analyses. The study participation rate was high (response rate 97%; medical students: n = 75; healthcare students: n = 22). Participants stated high levels of competency acquisition (total M = 1.59, individual items' M's ranging from 1.20 to 2.05) and even higher satisfaction with the teaching approach (total M = 1.28, individual items' M's ranging from 1.43 to 1.05). Overall satisfaction with the training was M = 1.22; SD = 0.58. No significant differences in ratings were found between the student groups. The qualitative results showed that students appreciated the interprofessional setting and experienced it as enriching. The most positive feedback was found in didactics/teaching methods on role-plays and group work; most suggestions for improvement were found in the area of structure and organisation on breaks and time management. Opening up an existing medical tutor qualification program to other student groups can be seen as fruitful to teach not only tutor-related aspects but also interprofessional competencies. The results demonstrate the importance of detailed planning that considers group composition and contextual conditions and provides interactive teaching methods to promote interprofessional experiences. This study offers important information about prerequisites and methodological implementation that could be important for the interprofessional redesign of existing training programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Peer-led tutorials are widely used in medical education to promote practical skills acquisition and support faculty staff. Typically, student tutors are custom trained for this specific task. We investigated whether opening up an existing medical tutor qualification program to other degree programs is successful in terms of acceptance among students, acquisition of tutor-specific and interprofessional competencies, and which factors contribute to success or failure.
METHODS
METHODS
We developed a two-day tutor qualification program and conducted it annually from 2016 to 2020 with medical and other healthcare students. At the end of each course, we administered a written survey in which the participants rated the following items: their attitudes towards interprofessional learning (using the UWE-IP-D Interprofessional Learning Scale), the interprofessional learning setting, the teaching approach, and their competency acquisition (each on a five-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Furthermore, we assessed participants' qualitative feedback in free-text fields and performed inductive content analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study participation rate was high (response rate 97%; medical students: n = 75; healthcare students: n = 22). Participants stated high levels of competency acquisition (total M = 1.59, individual items' M's ranging from 1.20 to 2.05) and even higher satisfaction with the teaching approach (total M = 1.28, individual items' M's ranging from 1.43 to 1.05). Overall satisfaction with the training was M = 1.22; SD = 0.58. No significant differences in ratings were found between the student groups. The qualitative results showed that students appreciated the interprofessional setting and experienced it as enriching. The most positive feedback was found in didactics/teaching methods on role-plays and group work; most suggestions for improvement were found in the area of structure and organisation on breaks and time management.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Opening up an existing medical tutor qualification program to other student groups can be seen as fruitful to teach not only tutor-related aspects but also interprofessional competencies. The results demonstrate the importance of detailed planning that considers group composition and contextual conditions and provides interactive teaching methods to promote interprofessional experiences. This study offers important information about prerequisites and methodological implementation that could be important for the interprofessional redesign of existing training programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35387641
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03304-y
pii: 10.1186/s12909-022-03304-y
pmc: PMC8988397
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
251Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Nurs. 2008 Mar;17(6):703-16
pubmed: 18047577
Med Teach. 2016 May;38(5):515-22
pubmed: 27008432
GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2014 May 15;31(2):Doc19
pubmed: 24872854
J Interprof Care. 2020 Jan 13;:1-8
pubmed: 31928468
J Interprof Care. 2017 Jan;31(1):105-109
pubmed: 27767361
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 May;122:61-63
pubmed: 28478890
Health Soc Care Community. 2004 Jul;12(4):346-58
pubmed: 15272890
J Interprof Care. 2021 Sep-Oct;35(5):751-759
pubmed: 32841067
J Interprof Care. 2013 Nov;27(6):448-53
pubmed: 23777592
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):591-9
pubmed: 17922354
PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233748
pubmed: 32470972
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jun 4;19(1):187
pubmed: 31164127
GMS J Med Educ. 2016 Apr 29;33(2):Doc25
pubmed: 27280136
GMS J Med Educ. 2016 Apr 29;33(2):Doc28
pubmed: 27280139
Clin Teach. 2016 Oct;13(5):325-31
pubmed: 27624197
J Adv Nurs. 2021 Feb;77(2):922-933
pubmed: 33222216
J Interprof Care. 2019 Nov-Dec;33(6):768-773
pubmed: 30943816
Acad Med. 1990 Oct;65(10):660-1
pubmed: 2261049
Med Teach. 2013 Dec;35(12):e1608-24
pubmed: 24245519
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 Oct;126:77-83
pubmed: 29132600
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2014 Sep 23;5:323-30
pubmed: 25278789
J Interprof Care. 2016 Nov;30(6):777-786
pubmed: 27715347
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):558-65
pubmed: 17922358
Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Jul;42:23-9
pubmed: 27237348
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Aug;13(3):361-72
pubmed: 17124627
Acad Med. 2012 Dec;87(12):1762-7
pubmed: 23095927
J Interprof Care. 2005 Jun;19(3):251-68
pubmed: 16029979
Med Educ. 2009 Feb;43(2):113-20
pubmed: 19161480
GMS J Med Educ. 2016 Apr 29;33(2):Doc21
pubmed: 27280132
J Interprof Care. 2017 Mar;31(2):164-166
pubmed: 28181846
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2011 Jun 23;2:157-72
pubmed: 23745087
Educ Prim Care. 2021 Mar;32(2):91-99
pubmed: 33375910
J Interprof Care. 2016 Sep;30(5):549-52
pubmed: 27559729
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Feb 04;16:48
pubmed: 26846665
J Interprof Care. 2015;29(4):386-8
pubmed: 25388214
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):546-52
pubmed: 17978967
Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2015 Aug;65(8):288-95
pubmed: 25794354
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Apr 2;19(1):95
pubmed: 30940106
Implement Sci. 2017 Apr 27;12(1):55
pubmed: 28449697
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 May;122:54-60
pubmed: 28359724
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2016 May 31;7:329-30
pubmed: 27329077
GMS J Med Educ. 2016 Apr 29;33(2):Doc22
pubmed: 27280133
J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Dec;20(12):1108-13
pubmed: 16423099
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Mar 27;18(1):48
pubmed: 29587730
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):583-90
pubmed: 17922356