↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Supporting medical students with learning disabilities in Asian medical schools

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Supporting medical students with learning disabilities in Asian medical schools
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, October 2010
DOI 10.2147/amep.s13253
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anwarul Azim Majumder, Sayeeda Rahman, Urban JA D’Souza, Gad Elbeheri, Khalid Bin Abdulrahman, M Muzaherul Huq

Abstract

Learning disabilities (LDs) represent the largest group of disabilities in higher education (HE) institutes, including medical schools, and the numbers are continuing to rise. The worrying concern is that two-thirds to half of these students with LDs remain undiagnosed when they start their undergraduate education and may even graduate without having their disabilities diagnosed. These students struggle with their academic abilities, receive poor grades and, as a result, develop lower perceptions of their intellectual abilities than do those students without LDs. All these ultimately hamper their professional practice, employment, and career progression. Appropriate and adequate educational policies, provisions, and practices help students to progress satisfactorily. In Asian countries, public and professional awareness about LDs is low, supportive provisions are limited, legislations are inadequate, data are scarce, and equal-opportunity/widening-participation policies are not implemented effectively in the HE sector. This article discusses the issues related to LDs in medical education and draws policy, provision, and practice implications to identify, assess, and support students with LDs in medical schools, particularly in an Asian context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Psychology 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2013.
All research outputs
#17,562,823
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,221
of 109,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 109,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them