↓ Skip to main content

Medical students can teach communication skills – a mixed methods study of cross-year peer tutoring

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Medical students can teach communication skills – a mixed methods study of cross-year peer tutoring
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0939-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Osamu Nomura, Hirotaka Onishi, Hiroyuki Kato

Abstract

Cross-year peer tutoring (CYPT) of medical students is recognized as an effective learning tool. The aim of this study is to investigate the non-inferiority of the objective outcome of medical interview training with CYPT compared with the results of faculty-led training (FLT), and to explore qualitatively the educational benefits of CYPT. We conducted a convergent mixed methods study including a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial and two focus groups. For the CYPT group, teaching was led by six student tutors from year 5. In the FLT group, students were taught by six physicians. Focus groups for student learners (four tutees) and student teachers (six tutors) were conducted following the training session. One hundred sixteen students agreed to participate. The OSCE scores of the CYPT group and FLT group were 91.4 and 91.2, respectively. The difference in the mean score was 0.2 with a 95% CI of -1.8 to 2.2 within the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 3.0. By analyzing the focus groups, we extracted 13 subordinate concepts and formed three categories including 'Benefits of CYPT', 'Reflections of tutees and tutors' and 'Comparison with faculty', which affected the interactions among tutees, tutors, and faculty. CYPT is effective for teaching communication skills to medical students and for enhancing reflective learning among both tutors and tutees.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 99 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Lecturer 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 34 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 33%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 41 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,351,475
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,970
of 3,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,939
of 317,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#30
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 317,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.