Peer Learning Has Double Effects in Clinical Research Education: A Qualitative Study.

IF 1.3 Q3 PEDIATRICS
International Journal of Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-01-27 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2024/5513079
Hiro Nakao, Osamu Nomura, Chie Nagata, Akira Ishiguro
{"title":"Peer Learning Has Double Effects in Clinical Research Education: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Hiro Nakao, Osamu Nomura, Chie Nagata, Akira Ishiguro","doi":"10.1155/2024/5513079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peer learning has been recognized for its effectiveness in health professional education. However, its effects on clinical research education are not clear and were explored qualitatively in this study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The peer-learning method was implemented in a clinical research education seminar for early-career physicians at a children's and mothers' hospital in 2019. We conducted semistructured interviews with participants about peer-learning experience and qualitatively analyzed verbatim transcripts using Engeström's \"activity theory\" framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From framework analysis, learning processes were extracted mainly in four domains, namely, (a) instrument and its usage: research design and its match with research question, (b) outcome: research result, (c) community: seminar, and (d) division of labor: roles of participants and staff.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this report of a peer-learning trial in postgraduate clinical research education, the following two pathways of peer-learning effects were abstracted. The indirect pathway was the presentations by experienced participants providing concrete examples of research processes. The direct pathway was the questions from experienced participants to beginners about specific and concrete questions. There were also two points to consider in peer learning in clinical research education: gaps in premise knowledge and beginners' frustration about expected outcomes. We believe that these extracted pathways and points imply the significance and considerations for continuing the peer-learning trial in clinical research education. Future tasks are to promote clinical research education with a view to the learning effects, not only on individuals, but also on groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":51591,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pediatrics","volume":"2024 ","pages":"5513079"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10838209/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5513079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Peer learning has been recognized for its effectiveness in health professional education. However, its effects on clinical research education are not clear and were explored qualitatively in this study.

Methods: The peer-learning method was implemented in a clinical research education seminar for early-career physicians at a children's and mothers' hospital in 2019. We conducted semistructured interviews with participants about peer-learning experience and qualitatively analyzed verbatim transcripts using Engeström's "activity theory" framework.

Results: From framework analysis, learning processes were extracted mainly in four domains, namely, (a) instrument and its usage: research design and its match with research question, (b) outcome: research result, (c) community: seminar, and (d) division of labor: roles of participants and staff.

Conclusions: In this report of a peer-learning trial in postgraduate clinical research education, the following two pathways of peer-learning effects were abstracted. The indirect pathway was the presentations by experienced participants providing concrete examples of research processes. The direct pathway was the questions from experienced participants to beginners about specific and concrete questions. There were also two points to consider in peer learning in clinical research education: gaps in premise knowledge and beginners' frustration about expected outcomes. We believe that these extracted pathways and points imply the significance and considerations for continuing the peer-learning trial in clinical research education. Future tasks are to promote clinical research education with a view to the learning effects, not only on individuals, but also on groups.

同伴学习在临床研究教育中具有双重效果:定性研究。
背景:同伴学习在卫生专业教育中的有效性已得到认可。然而,其对临床研究教育的影响尚不明确,本研究对其进行了定性探讨:方法:2019 年,在一家儿童和母亲医院为初入职场的医生举办的临床研究教育研讨会上实施了同伴学习法。我们对参与者进行了关于同伴学习经验的半结构式访谈,并使用恩格斯特罗姆的 "活动理论 "框架对逐字记录稿进行了定性分析:从框架分析中提取的学习过程主要包括四个方面,即(a)工具及其使用:研究设计及其与研究问题的匹配;(b)结果:研究成果;(c)社区:研讨会;(d)分工:参与者和工作人员的角色:在这份关于研究生临床研究教育中同伴学习试验的报告中,抽象出了同伴学习效果的以下两个途径。间接途径是由经验丰富的参与者介绍研究过程的具体实例。直接途径是由经验丰富的学员向初学者提出具体问题。临床研究教育中的同伴学习还有两点需要考虑:前提知识的差距和初学者对预期结果的失望。我们认为,这些提取的路径和要点意味着在临床研究教育中继续开展同伴学习试验的意义和注意事项。未来的任务是促进临床研究教育,不仅要关注个人的学习效果,还要关注群体的学习效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Pediatrics is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes original researcharticles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of pediatric research. The journal accepts submissions presented as an original article, short communication, case report, review article, systematic review, or letter to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信