What does this research mean for the field?

A standardized, centrally coordinated near-peer clinical skills curriculum significantly improves self-reported confidence in core clinical domains for first-year medical students volunteering at student-run clinics. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.CONFIRMATORY. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate whether a standardized and centrally coordinated near-peer clinical skills curriculum improves first-year medical students' self-reported confidence across seven student-run clinics.

August 23, 2026CureusOpen Access

Standardized Near-Peer Clinical Skills Training for Seven Student-Run Clinics: Assessing Impact on Student Confidence

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

JBJared Boetes PKParker Kronen KPKyle Polen

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Prospective educational evaluation demonstrates significant increases in clinical confidence among first-year medical students, indicating the scalability of standardized near-peer training.

Key Points

To evaluate whether a standardized and centrally coordinated near-peer clinical skills curriculum improves first-year medical students' self-reported confidence across seven student-run clinics.
Developed three standardized modules (Vital Signs, History Taking and Patient Presentations, and Physical Exam) featuring didactic instruction and hands-on practice led by near-peer educators.
Administered 5-point Likert scale surveys assessing self-reported confidence and perceived training effectiveness at pre-training, post-training, and two-month post-clinic timepoints.
Self-reported confidence significantly increased across all modules (p<0.01), with vital signs rising from 2.69 to 4.60 post-training (paired n=65) and history taking rising from 3.03 to 4.44 (paired n=59).
Confidence gains were sustained at two-month follow-up for vital signs (4.48, paired n=25) and history taking (4.17, paired n=18), while physical exam confidence improved from 2.08 to 4.46 post-training (paired n=26).
Perceived effectiveness was high, with 92.3% (vital signs), 86.4% (history taking), and 80.8% (physical exam) of students strongly agreeing that the near-peer model was effective.

Cite This Study

Boetes et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8aad667677a34114445831 https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.114881

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

August 23, 2026CureusOpen Access

Standardized Near-Peer Clinical Skills Training for Seven Student-Run Clinics: Assessing Impact on Student Confidence

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

JBJared Boetes PKParker Kronen KPKyle Polen

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Prospective educational evaluation demonstrates significant increases in clinical confidence among first-year medical students, indicating the scalability of standardized near-peer training.

Key Points

To evaluate whether a standardized and centrally coordinated near-peer clinical skills curriculum improves first-year medical students' self-reported confidence across seven student-run clinics.
Developed three standardized modules (Vital Signs, History Taking and Patient Presentations, and Physical Exam) featuring didactic instruction and hands-on practice led by near-peer educators.
Administered 5-point Likert scale surveys assessing self-reported confidence and perceived training effectiveness at pre-training, post-training, and two-month post-clinic timepoints.
Self-reported confidence significantly increased across all modules (p<0.01), with vital signs rising from 2.69 to 4.60 post-training (paired n=65) and history taking rising from 3.03 to 4.44 (paired n=59).
Confidence gains were sustained at two-month follow-up for vital signs (4.48, paired n=25) and history taking (4.17, paired n=18), while physical exam confidence improved from 2.08 to 4.46 post-training (paired n=26).
Perceived effectiveness was high, with 92.3% (vital signs), 86.4% (history taking), and 80.8% (physical exam) of students strongly agreeing that the near-peer model was effective.

Cite This Study

Boetes et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8aad667677a34114445831 https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.114881

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark