IntroductionInternational interest in peer-teaching and peer-assisted learning (PAL) during undergraduate medical programs has grown in recent years, reflected both in literature and in practice. There, remains however, a distinct lack of objective clarity and consensus on the true effectiveness of peer-teaching and its short- and long-term impacts on learning outcomes and clinical practice.ObjectiveTo summarize and critically appraise evidence presented on peer-teaching effectiveness and its impact on objective learning outcomes of medical students.MethodA literature search was conducted in four electronic databases. Titles and abstracts were screened and selection was based on strict eligibility criteria after examining full-texts. Two reviewers used a standard review and analysis framework to independently extract data from each study. Discrepancies in opinions were resolved by discussion in consultation with other reviewers. Adapted models of “Kirkpatrick’s Levels of Learning” were used to grade the impact size of study outcomes.ResultsFrom 127 potential titles, 41 were obtained as full-texts, and 19 selected after close examination and group deliberation. Fifteen studies focused on student-learner outcomes and four on student-teacher learning outcomes. Ten studies utilized randomized allocation and the majority of study participants were self-selected volunteers. Written examinations and observed clinical evaluations were common study outcome assessments. Eleven studies provided student-teachers with formal teacher training. Overall, results suggest that peer-teaching, in highly selective contexts, achieves short-term learner outcomes that are comparable with those produced by faculty-based teaching. Furthermore, peer-teaching has beneficial effects on student-teacher learning outcomes.ConclusionsPeer-teaching in undergraduate medical programs is comparable to conventional teaching when utilized in selected contexts. There is evidence to suggest that participating student-teachers benefit academically and professionally. Long-term effects of peer-teaching during medical school remain poorly understood and future research should aim to address this.

The results suggest that all university students are expressing concerns related to quality of life, and thus their health might be at risk. The findings in this study provided no evidence to support the notion that medical students experience lower levels of quality of life compared to other university students. When compared to the general population, all student groups examined in this study appeared to be experiencing lower levels of quality of life. This has implications for pastoral support, educationalists, student support personnel, and the university system.

For religious and nonreligious medical students, reduced meaning in life and hope were the strongest indicators of psychological distress. Interventions to improve the mental well-being of medical students may be more effective if aimed at teaching students how to find meaning and purpose in their lives and how to foster an enduring sense of hope and optimism.

Background: There is ample evidence to suggest that academic dishonesty remains an area of concern and interest for academic and professional bodies. There is also burgeoning research in the area of moral reasoning and its relevance to the teaching of pharmacy and medicine. Aims: To explore the associations between self-reported incidence of academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning in a professional student body. Methods: Responses were elicited from 433 pharmacy and medicine students. A questionnaire eliciting responses about academic dishonesty (copying, cheating, and collusion) and their decisions regarding an ethical dilemma was distributed. Multivariate analysis procedures were conducted. Results: The findings suggested that copying and collusion may be linked to the way students make ethical decisions. Students more likely to suggest unlawful solutions to the ethical dilemma were more likely to disclose engagement in copying information and colluding with other students. Conclusions: These findings imply that students engaging in academic dishonesty may be using different ethical frameworks. Therefore, employing ethical dilemmas would likely create a useful learning framework for identifying students employing dishonest strategies when coping with their studies. Increasing understanding through dialog about engagement in academic honesty will likely construct positive learning outcomes in the university with implications for future practice.