| Title |
Redesigning journal club in residency
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s107807 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Morhaf Al Achkar |
| Abstract |
The gap between production and implementation of knowledge is the main reason for the suboptimal quality of health care. To eliminate this gap and improve the quality of patient care, journal club (JC) in graduate medical education provides an opportunity for learning the skills of evidence-based medicine. JC, however, continues to face many challenges mainly due to poorly defined goals, inadequate preparation, and lack of interest. This article presents an innovative model to prepare and present JC based on three pillars: dialogical learning through group discussion, mentored residents as peer teachers, and including JC as part of a structured curriculum to learn evidence-based medicine. This engaging model has the potential to transform JC from a moribund session that is daunting for residents into a lively discussion to redefine clinical practice using the most current evidence. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Librarian | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 26% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
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 06 June 2016.
All research outputs
#16,305,401
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,365
of 312,718 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 1.5. 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 312,718 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 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