Peer observation of student-led teaching.

INTRODUCTION: The use of near-peer teaching in medical schools is increasing internationally. Peer observation of teaching (POT) is a useful and effective method for enhancing teaching experiences and quality, but its use among student peer teachers is not well documented. The aim of the study was to explore medical student perceptions on the value and limitations of POT. METHODS: Ten medical students were trained as observers. Using a previously developed model, they observed 27 teaching sessions led by other students (observees), with a pre- and post-observation meeting. Observers and observees completed a survey and group interview to explore their experiences. Descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of qualitative data were conducted. RESULTS: Observees found feedback valuable in learning about, reflecting on, and increasing confidence in teaching practice. They felt comfortable receiving feedback and reported positively about the observers in terms of: expertise, relatability, non-intimidating presence, and awareness of the target audience. Observers reported learning more about good teaching practice. While most observers found it enjoyable, several found some aspects of giving feedback uncomfortable. Most found it difficult to establish a satisfactory dynamic, citing lack of credibility and difficulty in eliminating hierarchies. Pre-existing friendships were reported by observers as both helping and hindering the dynamic. DISCUSSION: Both observers and observees gained from the experience of POT. However, observers lacked confidence in their credibility. Further work should address how best to implement POT into the curriculum to improve teaching practice in medical students. Further training or coaching could be considered to overcome observers' concerns.[Box: see text].

Needlessly controversial: the reporting of pharmaco- and psycho-therapy for the treatment of depression in the UK media.

BACKGROUND: It is well-established that media influences public perceptions, and that media coverage of psychiatry is negative compared to the rest of medicine. No studies that we know of, have compared media reporting on antidepressants and talking therapies as treatments for depression. We hypothesised that coverage of antidepressants would be more negative than that of psychotherapies in both headlines and articles. METHODS: We identified online articles in The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Express, and The Guardian between 11 June 2013 and 11 June 2018. Two raters independently evaluated their titles/content with regard to their portrayal of antidepressants and psychotherapies (positive/negative/neutral), with good inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: We identified 221 articles. Antidepressants featured in 184 articles, of which 27 (15%) portrayed them positively, 68 (37%) negatively, and 89 (48%) neutrally; and 173 headlines, of which 24 (14%) portrayed them positively, 64 (37%) negatively, and 85 (49%) neutrally. Antidepressants received more coverage than psychotherapy, which featured in 132 articles, of which 48 (36%) portrayed them positively, 3 (2%) negatively, and 81 (61%) neutrally; and 53 headlines, of which 16 (30%) portrayed them positively, 2 (4%) negatively, and 35 (66%) neutrally. A Fisher's exact test revealed a statistically significant difference between the portrayal of antidepressants and psychotherapies in both articles (p = 2.86 × 10-15) and headlines (p = 2.79 × 10-6). CONCLUSION: Despite the two treatments being similarly effective, the portrayal of antidepressants in the UK online media is more negative than that of psychotherapy. This could potentially discourage patients from considering taking antidepressants, and provoke patients currently taking antidepressants to stop abruptly.