↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Five-year review of an international clinical research-training program

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Five-year review of an international clinical research-training program
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, April 2015
DOI 10.2147/amep.s66627
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Kimie Suemoto, Sherine Ismail, Paulo César Rodrigues Pinto Corrêa, Faiza Khawaja, Teodoro Jerves, Laura Pesantez, Ana Claudia Camargo Gonçalves Germani, Fabio Zaina, Augusto Cesar Soares dos Santos, Ricardo Jorge de Oliveira Ferreira, Priyamvada Singh, Judy Vicente Paulo, Suely Reiko Matsubayashi, Liliane Pinto Vidor, Guilherme Andretta, Rita Tomás, Ben MW Illigens, Felipe Fregni

Abstract

The exponential increase in clinical research has profoundly changed medical sciences. Evidence that has accumulated in the past three decades from clinical trials has led to the proposal that clinical care should not be based solely on clinical expertise and patient values, and should integrate robust data from systematic research. As a consequence, clinical research has become more complex and methods have become more rigorous, and evidence is usually not easily translated into clinical practice. Therefore, the instruction of clinical research methods for scientists and clinicians must adapt to this new reality. To address this challenge, a global distance-learning clinical research-training program was developed, based on collaborative learning, the pedagogical goal of which was to develop critical thinking skills in clinical research. We describe and analyze the challenges and possible solutions of this course after 5 years of experience (2008-2012) with this program. Through evaluation by students and faculty, we identified and reviewed the following challenges of our program: 1) student engagement and motivation, 2) impact of heterogeneous audience on learning, 3) learning in large groups, 4) enhancing group learning, 5) enhancing social presence, 6) dropouts, 7) quality control, and 8) course management. We discuss these issues and potential alternatives with regard to our research and background.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Lecturer 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 16 31%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 April 2015.
All research outputs
#16,316,684
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#377
of 724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,923
of 280,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.