title: Evaluation of the acceptability of Peer Physical Examination (PPE) in medical and osteopathic students: a cross sectional survey.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Peer physical examination (PPE) is a method of training in medical and osteopathic curricula. The aim of this study was to compare the acceptability of PPE in two classes of medical and osteopathic students after their first experience, to obtain comparative information useful for an understanding of the different professional approaches. The leading hypothesis was that osteopathic students enter the curriculum with a more positive attitude to bodily contact.As a secondary aim, this study validated the new version of a questionnaire to assess the acceptability of PPE.
  
  
  METHODS
  A new version of a previously validated questionnaire and an instrument from the literature (the Examining Fellow Student [EFS] questionnaire) were used for a cross-sectional survey in a class of 129 3rd year medical students and in two parallel classes of 1st year osteopathic students (total of 112 students).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean score of the new questionnaire was significantly higher for the osteopathic students than for the medical students (53.4 ± 6.3 vs. 43.4 ± 8.9; p < 0.01). The only independent variables that were significantly predictive of the score in a linear regression analysis were gender and the condition of medical or osteopathic student. The EFS mean score also showed a significant difference between the osteopathic and medical students (30.76 ± 2.9 vs. 27.85 ± 4.3; p < 0.01).Factor analysis of the new questionnaire identified three factors (appropriateness and usefulness, sexual implications and passive role) accounting for 62.8% of the variance. Criterion validity was assessed by correlation with the EFS (Pearson's r coefficient = 0.61). Reliability was expressed in terms of Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which equals 0.86.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These quantitative results are consistent with previous qualitative research on the process of embodiment both in medicine and osteopathy. The new questionnaire proved to be valid and reliable. The objective assessment of the acceptability of PPE is a way to determine differences in students' attitudes towards contact with the body and can be used for counselling students regarding career choice. This study can also highlight differences between students from different professions and serve as a basis for reflection for improved mutual interprofessional understanding and future interprofessional education.
authors: Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Department of Surgical Sciences, University "Sapienza" of Rome, Viale del Policlinico, 00161, Rome, Italy. fabrizio.consorti@uniroma1.it.
authors: Fabrizio
authors: F
authors: Consorti
authors: Rosaria
authors: R
authors: Mancuso
authors: Annalisa
authors: A
authors: Piccolo
authors: Giacomo
authors: G
authors: Consorti
authors: Joseph
authors: J
authors: Zurlo
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003479:Curriculum; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010021:Osteopathic Medicine / Q000193:education*; D010379:Peer Group; D010808:Physical Examination / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology; D013337:Students, Medical / Q000523:psychology*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D055815:Young Adult
references: Med Teach. 2005 Nov;27(7):599-605
references: 16332551
references: Med Teach. 2009 Oct;31(10):928-32
references: 19877866
references: Teach Learn Med. 2005 Fall;17(4):337-43
references: 16197320
references: Med Teach. 2011;33(1):e27-36
references: 21182371
references: Teach Learn Med. 2012;24(1):55-62
references: 22250937
references: Med Teach. 2009 Oct;31(10):921-7
references: 19877865
references: Med Teach. 2011;33(10):e528-40
references: 21942489
references: Med Educ. 2007 Aug;41(8):801-7
references: 17661888
references: Clin Ter. 2012 Nov;163(6):e377-86
references: 23306749
references: Sociol Health Illn. 2011 Feb;33(2):237-51
references: 21029118
references: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 Oct;18(4):807-15
references: 23073624
references: Physiotherapy. 2012 Mar;98(1):33-9
references: 22265383
references: Med Educ. 2008 Dec;42(12):1218-26
references: 19120953
references: Acad Med. 2000 Apr;75(4):384-9
references: 10893124
references: Med Teach. 2004 Feb;26(1):86-8
references: 14744701
references: Med Educ. 1998 Mar;32(2):143-9
references: 9743765
references: Med Educ. 2006 Oct;40(10):957-64
references: 16987185
references: Med Educ. 2001 Jul;35(7):681-6
references: 11437971
references: Adv Med Educ Pract. 2012 Jun 11;3:55-60
references: 23762002
references: Res Nurs Health. 2006 Oct;29(5):489-97
references: 16977646
references: Eval Health Prof. 2000 Sep;23(3):361-71
references: 11067196
references: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009 Mar;14(1):103-21
references: 18214706
references: Med J Aust. 2008 Sep 1;189(5):274-6
references: 18759726
references: Nurse Educ Today. 2013 Aug;33(8):884-8
references: 22986173
references: Med Teach. 2012;34(1):82; author reply 82-3
references: 22250683
references: Med Teach. 2010;32(2):e101-5
references: 20163215