ABSTRACT
Background Peer-to-peer teaching, which is an alternative to standard teaching (by expert instructors), has the potential to emphasize student self-learning and reduce the cost and workload of the instructor. Self-instruction videos with peer feedback are highlighted in many medical and nursing school curricula.
Objective To evaluate whether peer to peer instruction supported by a structured curriculum and video exemplars is not inferior to standard instructor-led teaching in basic airway management skill, knowledge, and confidence attainment.
Method This single blinded randomized crossover trial was conducted with a sample of novice nursing students. Data was collected through the pre-to post-knowledge and confidence assessments. The students were randomly assigned to two crossover groups. Each student learned basic airway management skills through both methods. The students’ performances were recorded in every session with recordings reviewed by blinded expert instructors.
Results The study included 48 participants, who were assigned into both the expert instruction group and peer-to-peer group through computer generated randomization. The skill rating scores of the peer-to-peer group were not inferior to the standard teaching. With further analysis, we noted that the peer-to-peer group scores had significantly higher scores demonstrating a large effect size (Cohen’s d of 1.07 (p-value 0.002) for oropharyngeal airway insertion, 1.14 (p-value <0.001) for nasopharyngeal airway insertion and 0.81 (p-value 0.003) for bag mask ventilation). There was no significant difference between pre- and post-knowledge scores across groups (p-value of 0.13 and 0.22 respectively). Participants in both groups reported higher confidence after learning. However, the difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusions Undergraduate nursing students trained in basic airway management skills by peer-to-peer instruction and a structured curriculum did not show inferior scores compared to the students who were trained by expert instructors. There was no significant difference in the knowledge and confidence levels between the groups.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
There is no funding support.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
Any clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information
