J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2016;13:42. 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.42.

Australian medical students have fewer opportunities to do physical examination of peers of the opposite gender

• Taylor S
• Shulruf B

• KMID: 2413791
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.42

Abstract

PURPOSE
Peer physical examination (PPE), by which junior medical students learn physical examination skills before practicing on patients, is a widely implemented and accepted part of medical curricula. However, the ethical implications of PPE have been debated, since issues including student gender impact on its acceptability. Research has previously demonstrated the phenomenon of "˜attitude-behavior inconsistency' showing that students' predictions about their participation in PPE differ from what they actually do in practice. This study asks whether gender and student self-ratings of outlook affect engagement in PPE.
METHODS
This study gathered data from students who had completed PPE with the objective of determining what factors have the greatest impact on the actual practice of PPE by students. Data were used to derive the number of opportunities students had to examine a peer, for various body parts. Respondent gender and self-ratings of outlook were recorded.
RESULTS
Responses from 130 students were analysed: 74 female (57%) and 56 male (43%). Students have fewer opportunities to examine peers of the opposite gender; this is statistically significant for all body parts when male students examine female peers.
CONCLUSION
Gender is the factor of overriding importance on whether these peer interactions actually occur, such that students have fewer opportunities to examine peers of the opposite gender, particularly male students examining female peers. Student outlook has little impact. We speculate that the more acceptable PPE is to participants, paradoxically, the more complicated these interactions become, possibly with implications for future practice.

Keyword

Attitude; Australia; Peer group; Medical students; Physical examination

MeSH Terms

Australia
Curriculum
Female
Human Body
Humans
Male
Peer Group
Physical Examination*
Students, Medical*
Surveys and Questionnaires

Reference

References

1. Delany C, Frawley H. We need a new model for obtaining students’ consent to conduct peer physical examinations. Acad Med. 2011; 86:539. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e318212eb2c.

2. Chen JY, Yip AL, Lam CL, Patil NG. Does medical student willingness to practise peer physical examination translate into action? Med Teach. 2011; 33:e528–e540. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.599893.

3. McLachlan JC, White P, Donnelly L, Patten D. Student attitudes to peer physical examination: a qualitative study of changes in expressed willingness to participate. Med Teach. 2010; 32:e101–e105. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590903202504.

4. Hendry GJ. Barriers to undergraduate peer-physical examination of the lower limb in the health sciences and strategies to improve inclusion: a review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013; 18:807–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9418-4.

5. Outram S, Nair BR. Peer physical examination: time to revisit? Med J Aust. 2008; 189:274–276.

6. Reid KJ, Kgakololo M, Sutherland RM, Elliott SL, Dodds AE. First-year medical students’ willingness to participate in peer physical examination. Teach Learn Med. 2012; 24:55–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2012.641489.

7. Chinnah TI, de Bere SR, Collett T. Students’ views on the impact of peer physical examination and palpation as a pedagogic tool for teaching and learning living human anatomy. Med Teach. 2011; 33:e27–e36. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.530313.

8. Rees CE. The influence of gender on student willingness to engage in peer physical examination: the practical implications of feminist theory of body image. Med Educ. 2007; 41:801–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02779.x.

9. Rees CE, Wearn AM, Vnuk AK, Bradley PA. Don’t want to show fellow students my naughty bits: medical students’ anxieties about peer examination of intimate body regions at six schools across UK, Australasia and Far-East Asia. Med Teach. 2009; 31:921–927. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590802578244.

10. Rees CE, Wearn AM, Vnuk AK, Sato TJ. Medical students’ attitudes towards peer physical examination: findings from an international cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009; 14:103–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007-9094-y.

11. Dogra N, Bhatti F, Ertubey C, Kelly M, Rowlands A, Singh D, Turner M. Teaching diversity to medical undergraduates: curriculum development, delivery and assessment. AMEE GUIDE No. 103. Med Teach. 2016; 38:323–337. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1105944.

12. Field AP. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage;2009.

13. Schuwirth LW. Programmatic assessment and Kane’s validity perspective. Med Educ. 2012; 46:38–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04098.x.

14. Duvivier RJ, van Geel K, van Dalen J, Scherpbier AJ. Learning physical examination skills outside timetabled training sessions: what happens and why? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012; 17:339–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9312-5.