↓ Skip to main content

A mixed method, multiperspective evaluation of a near peer teaching programme

Overview of attention for article published in Postgraduate Medical Journal, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A mixed method, multiperspective evaluation of a near peer teaching programme
Published in
Postgraduate Medical Journal, February 2017
DOI 10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134464
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sinéad Lydon, Paul O’Connor, Orla Mongan, Miroslawa Gorecka, Lyle McVicker, Aiden Stankard, Dara Byrne

Abstract

Peer teaching (PT) has become increasingly popular. PT may offer benefits for students, tutors and institutions. Although resistance to PT has been identified among faculty, research has typically focused on students' experiences and perceptions, rather than those of the peer tutors or senior doctors/medical faculty. The current study comprised of a comprehensive, multiperspective evaluation of a near PT programme delivered by interns to final-year medical students in the Republic of Ireland. This study employed a mixed methods design, using both interviews and questionnaires to assess students' (n=130), interns' (n=49) and medical faculty's or senior doctors' (n=29) perceptions of the programme. All three groups were emphatic about the programme's benefits, although senior doctors and faculty reported significantly more positive attitudes than the others. Mean ratings of the programme's value, out of 10, were 8.2 among students, 8.2 among interns and 9.1 among senior doctors and faculty. Challenges identified were largely organisational in nature. Perceived benefits for students included the informality of teaching sessions, increased opportunities in the clinical environment and improvements in exam preparedness. Perceived benefits for the interns included improvements in knowledge and teaching ability and experience as a role model. PT programmes have been posited as an 'easy fix' to growing numbers of students. However, it is apparent that PT has substantial value outside of this. Future research that conducts economic evaluations of such programmes and that collects objective data on teaching quality and student learning would be of much interest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 22%
Student > Master 9 13%
Lecturer 5 7%
Researcher 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 52%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#5,310,822
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Postgraduate Medical Journal
#798
of 3,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,512
of 324,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Postgraduate Medical Journal
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.