↓ Skip to main content

For the General Internist: A Review of Relevant 2013 Innovations in Medical Education

Overview of attention for article published in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
For the General Internist: A Review of Relevant 2013 Innovations in Medical Education
Published in
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3197-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brita Roy, Lisa L. Willett, Carol Bates, Briar Duffy, Kathel Dunn, Reena Karani, Shobhina G. Chheda

Abstract

We conducted a review of articles published in 2013 to identify high-quality research in medical education that was relevant to general medicine education practice. Our review team consisted of six general internists with expertise in medical education of varying ranks, as well as a professional medical librarian. We manually searched 15 journals in pairs, and performed an online search using the PubMed search engine for all original research articles in medical education published in 2013. From the total 4,181 citations identified, we selected 65 articles considered most relevant to general medicine educational practice. Each team member then independently reviewed and rated the quality of each selected article using the modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. We then reviewed the quality and relevance of each selected study and grouped them into categories of propensity for inclusion. Nineteen studies were felt to be of adequate quality and were of moderate to high propensity for inclusion. Team members then independently voted for studies they felt to be of the highest relevance and quality within the 19 selected studies. The ten articles with the greatest number of votes were included in the review. We categorized the studies into five general themes: Improving Clinical Skills in UME, Inpatient Clinical Teaching Methods, Advancements in Continuity Clinic, Handoffs/Transitions in Care, and Trainee Assessment. Most studies in our review of the 2013 literature in general medical education were limited to single institutions and non-randomized study designs; we identified significant limitations of each study. Selected articles may inform future research and practice of medical educators.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 29%
Student > Bachelor 4 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Professor 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 62%
Psychology 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%

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 18 February 2015.
All research outputs
#3,396,521
of 12,348,320 outputs
Outputs from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,873
of 4,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,844
of 266,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#68
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,348,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 266,562 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.