Jill Deaver

Peer Instruction (PI) has demonstrated benefits in STEM education, but its effectiveness as a distinct instructional method in health professions education remains uncertain. This systematic review identified 17 eligible studies implementing Mazur's PI framework in medical and dental education, with 12 contributing to meta-analyses. PI yielded large within-session conceptual gains (Hedges' g ≥ 1.48; p < 0.001) but showed no performance superiority over alternative instructional approaches (p = 0.082). 74% of learners reported PI to be helpful (p < 0.001). Evidence for long-term retention or transfer remains limited. Curricular adoption should be guided by logistical feasibility and learning objective alignment rather than expectations of superior performance over other established active strategies. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-026-02744-1.

Academic health sciences libraries (“libraries”) offer services that span the entire research lifecycle, positioning them as natural partners in advancing clinical and translational science. Many libraries enjoy active and productive collaborations with Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs and other translational initiatives like the IDeA Clinical & Translational Research Network. This article explores areas of potential partnership between libraries and Translational Science Hubs (TSH), highlighting areas where libraries can support the CTSA Program’s five functional areas outlined in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. It serves as a primer for TSH and libraries to explore potential collaborations, demonstrating how libraries can connect researchers to services and resources that support the information needs of TSH.

Growth in the online survey market may be increasing response burden and possibly jeopardizing higher response rates. This meta‐analysis evaluated survey trends over one decade (2011–2020) to determine: (1) changes in survey publication rates over time, (2) changes in response rates over time, (3) typical response rates within health sciences education research, (4) the factors influencing survey completion levels, and (5) common gaps in survey methods and outcomes reporting. Study I estimated survey publication trends between 2011 and 2020 using articles published in the top three health sciences education research journals. Study II searched the anatomical sciences education literature across six databases and extracted study/survey features and survey response rates. Time plots and a proportional meta‐analysis were performed. Per 2926 research articles, the annual estimated proportion of studies with survey methodologies has remained constant, with no linear trend (p > 0.050) over time (Study I). Study II reported a pooled absolute response rate of 67% (95% CI = 63.9–69.0) across 360 studies (k), totaling 115,526 distributed surveys. Despite response rate oscillations over time, no significant linear trend (p = 0.995) was detected. Neither survey length, incentives, sponsorship, nor population type affected absolute response rates (p ≥ 0.070). Only 35% (120 of 339) of studies utilizing a Likert scale reported evidence of survey validity. Survey response rates and the prevalence of studies with survey methodologies have remained stable with no linear trends over time. We recommend researchers strive for a typical absolute response rate of 67% or higher and clearly document evidence of survey validity for empirical studies.