Peer-Led or Faculty-Led? Investigating the Best Approach to Journal Clubs for Postgraduation Trainees, A Quasi Experimental Study.

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.