↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Application of active learning modalities to achieve medical genetics competencies and their learning outcome assessments

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Application of active learning modalities to achieve medical genetics competencies and their learning outcome assessments
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/amep.s145696
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nobuko Hagiwara

Abstract

The steadily falling costs of genome sequencing, coupled with the growing number of genetic tests with proven clinical validity, have made the use of genetic testing more common in clinical practice. This development has necessitated nongeneticist physicians, especially primary care physicians, to become more responsible for assessing genetic risks for their patients. Providing undergraduate medical students a solid foundation in genomic medicine, therefore, has become all the more important to ensure the readiness of future physicians in applying genomic medicine to their patient care. In order to further enhance the effectiveness of instructing practical skills in medical genetics, the emphasis of active learning modules in genetics curriculum at medical schools has increased in recent years. This is because of the general acceptance of a better efficacy of active learner-centered pedagogy over passive lecturer-centered pedagogy. However, an objective standard to evaluate students' skill levels in genomic medicine achieved by active learning is currently missing. Recently, entrustable professional activities (EPAs) in genomic medicine have been proposed as a framework for developing physician competencies in genomic medicine. EPAs in genomic medicine provide a convenient guideline for not only developing genomic medicine curriculum but also assessing students' competency levels in practicing genomic medicine. In this review, the efficacy of different types of active learning modules reported for medical genetics curricula is discussed using EPAs in genomic medicine as a common evaluation standard for modules' learning outcomes. The utility of the EPAs in genomic medicine for designing active learning modules in undergraduate medical genetics curricula is also discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 December 2017.
All research outputs
#8,105,956
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,284
of 447,329 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 has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. 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 447,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
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