There were 128 submitted surveys; of those, 117 responded that they attended at least one O.P.U.S. session, with 36 students attending all three sessions, 42 students attending two sessions, and 41 students attending one session. There were 11 responses from students who did not attend any O.P.U.S. sessions. More students answered that O.P.U.S. was effective for studying OMM (73.5%; 95% CI= (65.5, 81.5)), compared to ineffective (13.7%; 95% CI=(7.5, 19.9)). More students answered that O.P.U.S. was effective for preparing for the OMM practical (70.9%; 95% CI=(62.7, 79.2)), compared to ineffective (18.8%; 95% CI=(11.7, 25.9)).

The authors of this study have no conflict of interest to disclose.

O.P.U.S. was reported by students to be an effective method both for studying OMM and preparing for OMM practical examinations. Although effective, of the students who responded to the survey, 53.97% (n=68) reported they would have preferred an alternate method to peer-to-peer teaching.

There are many ways to study and learn osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM). Traditionally, students are taught OMM in the lab by a primary instructor, who presents the theory and techniques step-by-step in demonstrations to large groups of osteopathic medical students.1 To provide first year osteopathic medical students with an alternate way of learning and studying for OMM practical examinations, the OMM department developed Organized Practice for Undergraduate (osteopathic medical) Students (O.P.U.S.), which is small group peer-to-peer teaching facilitated by a third year teaching assistant (academic medicine scholar).

Small group learning optimally consists of a group of 8-12 students, so as to allow all the participants to regularly participate.2 Peer-to-peer teaching is defined as students teaching fellow students who are at an equal educational level as them. Peer-assisted learning (PAL; or near-peer teaching) describes when a more advanced student is teaching a less advanced student.3 A few examples of known benefits of these methods of learning are shown in table 1. The idea of utilizing small group peer-to-peer teaching uses the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (image 1), wherein they have seen the technique, have practiced it, and now are teaching it to their peers.

Students who participated in the O.P.U.S. peer-to-peer sessions would rate the sessions more effective in preparation for their OMM practical examinations.

Students in this survey on average reported studying for 5.93 hours (SD 2.81); of these hours, O.P.U.S. is an additional one hour session. Peer-to-peer teaching in small groups appears to be an effective method for first year osteopathic medical students to both study OMM and to help them prepare for OMM practical examinations. The major limitation to this study is that it is a survey – approximately 1/3 of students who received the survey responded to it. Only 11 students who did not attend an O.P.U.S. session responded to the survey, so there was not large sample for comparison. From the students who did not attend all three sessions, 34.15% (n=28) of students reported that O.P.U.S. was not helpful to them, followed next by they did not sign up in time at 25.61% of respondents (n=21), and then by no time at 21.95% (n=18). In the comments for that question, a few students reported a difference in efficacy of the session based on the academic medicine scholar who led the session. A possible way to combat this would be to have the scholars undergo more training on how to effectively lead the session. In future studies, we hope to examine the relationship between O.P.U.S. attendance and practical examination grades.

EfficacyofSmallGroupPeer-to-PeerTeachingforOsteopathicManipula<veMedicine(OMM)Prac<calExamina<onReview

DanielleRubinstein,OMSIII;PatriciaKooyman,DO1;Min-KyungJung2;SheldonYao,DO11DepartmentofOsteopathicManipula5veMedicine,NewYorkIns5tuteofTechnologyCollegeofOsteopathicMedicine,OldWestbury,NY

2ResearchDepartment,NewYorkIns5tuteofTechnologyCollegeofOsteopathicMedicine,OldWestbury,NY

1.  SniderKT,SeffingerMA,FerrillHP,GishEE.Trainer-to-StudentRa5osforTeachingPsychomotorSkillsinHealthCareFields,asAppliedtoOsteopathicManipula5veMedicine.JAmOsteopathAssoc.2012.112(4):182-186.

2.  WaltonH.Smallgroupmethodsinmedicalteaching.MedicalEdu.1997.31:459-464.3.  YuTC,WilsonNC,SinghPP,LemanuDP,HawkenSJ,HillAG.Medicalstudents-as-teachers:a

systema5creviewofpeer-assistedteachingduringmedicalschool.AdvinMedEduandPrac.2011.2:157-172.

4.  FieldM,BurkeJM,McAllisterD,LloydDM.Peer-assistedlearning:anovelapproachtoclinicalskillsformedicalstudents.MedicalEdu.2007.41:411-418.

5.  Grantham,N.Bloom'sTaxonomyVerbs-FreeClassroomCharthbps://www.fractuslearning.com/2016/01/25/blooms-taxonomy-verbs-free-chart/(accessedFeb25,2017).

Background Discussion

References

Hypothesis

Conclusion

This was a retrospective study on survey data collected by the Department of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine. All the first year students at the NYITCOM Old Westbury, NY campus (n=319) were emailed surveys following the completion of their fall term. The surveys used a 5-point Likert Scale to assess the efficacy of the three O.P.U.S. sessions conducted during that term for studying for OMM and the efficacy of O.P.U.S. for preparing them for OMM practical examinations. To better evaluate the population, students were also asked how many hours they spend preparing for an OMM practical and how many of the O.P.U.S. sessions they attended out of the three that were offered during that timeframe.

IRB approval was obtained on January 26, 2017 by the NYIT-IRB: #BHS-1251.

Table1.Knownbenefitsofsmallgrouplearning,peer-to-peerteaching,andpeer-assistedlearning2,4

Studentsacquireincreasedcomprehensionofthematerial

Studentsarebeberabletoassembleandpresentinforma5on

Studentsareabletoaskques5onsandclearupconfusion

Studentsfeeltheybecomemorear5culateandareabletospeakwithmoreconfidence

Studentsfeelmorecomfortableapproachingapeerthanafacultymember

n=26

n=4

n=11

n=29

n=7

n=5

n=31

n=4

n=10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Effec+ve NoEffect Ineffec+ve

Num

bero

fStude

nts

Efficacy

1Session

2Sessions

3Sessions

Figure 2. Efficacy of O.P.U.S. for studying OMM.

n=25

n=4

n=12

n=31

n=6

n=4

n=27

n=3

n=6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Effec+ve NoEffect Ineffec+ve

Num

bero

fStude

nts

Efficacy

1Session

2Sessions

3Sessions

Figure 1. Efficacy of O.P.U.S. for preparing for OMM practical examinations.

11.11%

77.78%

33.33%

33.33%

44.44%

No+me Nointerest Idon'tlearnthatway Ididn'tsignupin+me Therewasn'tenoughspace

Image 2. Set up of an O.P.U.S. session.Thereisoneacademicmedicinescholarleadingagroupof8-12students.

Figure 3. Reasons why students did not attend O.P.U.S.

21.95%

10.98%

19.51%

25.61%

9.76%2.44%

34.15%

No0me Nointerest Idon'tlearnthatway

Ididn'tsignupin0me Therewasn'tenoughspace Ididn'tknowaboutsigningup

O.P.U.S.wasn'thelpfultome

Figure 4. Reasons why students did not attend all three O.P.U.S. sessions.

Image 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy5.

Table2.TopcommentsfromstudentsaboutO.P.U.S.summarized

Thehourwasnotlongenoughtolearneffec5vely

Thesessionismoreeffec5veandrunsmoresmoothlywheneveryonecomesprepared

TheO.P.U.S.sessionsshouldbestructured,with5mingofeachcomponent

Table3.Alternatereviewmethodspreferredbystudents.

Faculty-ledreview

Selfstudywithfriendsandfamilymembers

Reviewingclassresources

Mockprac5cal

Results

Methods