↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Asking what do residents value most: a recent overview of internal medicine residents’ learning preferences

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Asking what do residents value most: a recent overview of internal medicine residents’ learning preferences
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, July 2018
DOI 10.2147/amep.s165717
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia B Caton, Stephen R Pelletier, Helen M Shields

Abstract

Little is known about the preferred learning experiences of today's internal medicine residents. We conducted a survey of the educational experiences in an internal medicine residency to determine the learning opportunities internal medicine residents value most and why. An online, anonymous survey of 182 internal medicine residents was performed, with each resident receiving a survey each day over nine days. Participants were asked to state their most valuable learning experience over the past day, describe why it was valuable, and rank it on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Resident free-text responses were coded and grouped into themes. The location of and participants in the experience were also examined. The 182 residents completed a total of 303 surveys. Of the 303 surveys, 92% (N=277) of the responses noted their chosen learning experience was useful. An attending was involved in 50% (N=152) of experiences; the patient was noted as a participant in 8% (N=25) of experiences. Free-text responses were coded into five thematic groups descriptive of why residents found their learning experiences to be valuable: Repetition in Learning, Effective Pedagogy, Clinical Problem Solving as an Individual or Collaboratively, Opportunity for Active Engagement, and Bedside Learning. Our data provide a broader framework for designing and implementing future faculty development and resident curricula that emphasize interprofessional education and the patient as a key educational figure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 4 15%
Librarian 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Chemistry 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 31%
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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,417,146
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,379
of 342,669 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 2.0. 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 342,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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