↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Improving medical students' knowledge of genetic disease: a review of current and emerging pedagogical practices

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
Improving medical students' knowledge of genetic disease: a review of current and emerging pedagogical practices
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/amep.s73644
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J Wolyniak, Lynne T Bemis, Amy J Prunuske

Abstract

Genetics is an essential subject to be mastered by health professional students of all types. However, technological advances in genomics and recent pedagogical research have changed the way in which many medical training programs teach genetics to their students. These advances favor a more experience-based education focused primarily on developing student's critical thinking skills. In this review, we examine the current state of genetics education at both the preclinical and clinical levels and the ways in which medical and pedagogical research have guided reforms to current and emerging teaching practices in genetics. We discover exciting trends taking place in which genetics is integrated with other scientific disciplines both horizontally and vertically across medical curricula to emphasize training in scientific critical thinking skills among students via the evaluation of clinical evidence and consultation of online databases. These trends will produce future health professionals with the skills and confidence necessary to embrace the new tools of medical practice that have emerged from scientific advances in genetics, genomics, and bioinformatics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Unknown 88 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Other 25 28%
Unknown 25 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 25 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 May 2019.
All research outputs
#5,445,703
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,086
of 287,782 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. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. 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 287,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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