Abstract
Introduction: Journal clubs are essential in postgraduate education. They promote critical appraisal and understanding of research articles. Faculty-led journal clubs offer structured guidance, while peer-led models emphasize collaboration and engagement. Understanding which approach better supports trainees’ learning can inform educational strategies in postgraduate training programs. Objective: To compare the perceived effectiveness of peer-led versus faculty-led journal clubs in enhancing postgraduate trainees’ understanding of research articles. Methodology: A quasi-experimental study was conducted with 60 postgraduate trainees randomly assigned to peer-led (n=30) or faculty-led (n=30) journal clubs. Identical articles were discussed in standardized sessions. A validated post-session questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale assessed trainees’ perceptions of clarity of article content, confidence in interpreting results, and ability to identify key findings. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests. Results: The faculty-led group reported higher clarity of content (4.4 ± 0.5 vs. 3.8 ± 0.6, p=0.02) and confidence in interpreting results (4.3 ± 0.5 vs. 3.9 ± 0.7, p=0.04). Both groups scored similarly on identifying key findings (4.1 ± 0.6 vs. 3.9 ± 0.6, p=0.15). Overall, both groups provided positive feedback, with faculty-led sessions praised for structure and peer-led sessions valued for promoting collaboration and engagement. Conclusion: Both peer-led and faculty-led journal clubs effectively enhance trainees' understanding of research articles, with faculty -led sessions excelling in clarity and confidence. A hybrid model combining the strengths of both approaches may maximize learning outcomes. Future research should explore objective measures of learning and test these models in diverse educational settings.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call