↓ Skip to main content

Utility of learning plans in general practice vocational training: a mixed-methods national study of registrar, supervisor, and educator perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2016
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

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Utility of learning plans in general practice vocational training: a mixed-methods national study of registrar, supervisor, and educator perspectives
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0736-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Belinda Garth, Catherine Kirby, Peter Silberberg, James Brown

Abstract

Learning plans are a compulsory component of the training and assessment requirements of general practice (GP) registrars in Australia. There is a small but growing number of studies reporting that learning plans are not well accepted or utilised in general practice training. There is a lack of research examining this apparent contradiction. The aim of this study was to examine use and perceived utility of formal learning plans in GP vocational training. This mixed-method Australian national research project utilised online learning plan usage data from 208 GP registrars and semi-structured focus groups and telephone interviews with 35 GP registrars, 12 recently fellowed GPs, 16 supervisors and 17 medical educators across three Regional Training Providers (RTPs). Qualitative data were analysed thematically using template analysis. Learning plans were used mostly as a log of activities rather than as a planning tool. Most learning needs were entered and ticked off as complete on the same day. Learning plans were perceived as having little value for registrars in their journey to becoming a competent GP, and as a bureaucratic hurdle serving as a distraction rather than an aid to learning. The process of learning planning was valued more so than the documentation of learning planning. This study provides creditable evidence that mandated learning plans are broadly considered by users to be a bureaucratic impediment with little value as a learning tool. It is more important to support registrars in planning their learning than to enforce documentation of this process in a learning plan. If learning planning is to be an assessed competence, methods of assessment other than the submission of a formal learning plan should be explored.

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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Mathematics 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 13 27%
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 16 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,476,740
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,720
of 3,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,205
of 343,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#45
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 343,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.