Empowering medical students: Peer-Led OSCE reduces anxiety and may enhance test performance

0Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a widely used assessment method often associated with high levels of student anxiety and significant logistical demands, including time and professional resources. This study evaluated the impact of a peer-led mock OSCE intervention—wherein students conceptualized and administered the mock assessment—on anxiety levels and subsequent performance in summative OSCE. Methods Intervention: At the end of 2023, 28 third-year medical students taking the summative OSCE for the first time were randomized to participate in a peer-led mock OSCE, taking on roles as station designers, examiners, and examinees. An additional 39 students formed the control group, who did not participate in the intervention. Endpoints: Primary endpoint was state anxiety levels assessed with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI); summative OSCE performance scores were a secondary endpoint. Results Students in the mock OSCE group demonstrated significantly lower state anxiety levels (54.80±13.40) than the control group (63.56±12.20, p=0.009, Cohen's d=0.692, mean difference=8.79 points, 95% CI [2.25, 15.3]). Summative OSCE scores were numerically higher in the intervention group (8.60 ± 0.63) compared to control (8.30±0.85, p=0.055, r=0.271, 95% CI [−0.000019, 0.600]), showing a favorable directional trend. Conclusion Participation in a peer-led mock OSCE significantly reduced state anxiety levels and may improve summative OSCE scores. This intervention may represent a valuable strategy to enhance both academic outcomes and student well-being in high-stakes medical assessments.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

de Lima, L. M., Favarato, M. H., & Tibério, I. F. L. C. (2026). Empowering medical students: Peer-Led OSCE reduces anxiety and may enhance test performance. PLOS ONE, 21(2 February). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0340407

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free