↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review and meta-analysis of selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 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

Readers on

mendeley
215 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
A systematic review and meta-analysis of selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0538-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Sattelmayer, Simone Elsig, Roger Hilfiker, Gillian Baer

Abstract

Learning of procedural skills is an essential component in the education of future health professionals. There is little evidence on how procedural skills are best learnt and practiced in education. There is a need for educators to know what specific interventions could be used to increase learning of these skills. However, there is growing evidence from rehabilitation science, sport science and psychology that learning can be promoted with the application of motor learning principles. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the evidence for selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education. The selected principles were: whole or part practice, random or blocked practice, mental or no additional mental practice and terminal or concurrent feedback. CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, Eric and Medline were systematically searched for eligible studies using pre-defined keywords. Included studies were evaluated on their risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The search resulted in 740 records, following screening for relevance 15 randomised controlled trials including 695 participants were included in this systematic review. Most procedural skills in this review related to surgical procedures. Mental practice significantly improved performance on a post-acquisition test (SMD: 0.43, 95 % CI 0.01 to 0.85). Terminal feedback significantly improved learning on a transfer test (SMD: 0.94, 95 % CI 0.18 to 1.70). There were indications that whole practice had some advantages over part practice and random practice was superior to blocked practice on post-acquisition tests. All studies were evaluated as having a high risk of bias. Next to a possible performance bias in all included studies the method of sequence generation was often poorly reported. There is some evidence to recommend the use of mental practice for procedural learning in medical education. There is limited evidence to conclude that terminal feedback is more effective than concurrent feedback on a transfer test. For the remaining parameters that were reviewed there was insufficient evidence to make definitive recommendations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 211 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 12%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 17 8%
Other 56 26%
Unknown 45 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 14%
Sports and Recreations 18 8%
Neuroscience 12 6%
Psychology 9 4%
Other 40 19%
Unknown 57 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 14 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,819,626
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,838
of 3,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,355
of 396,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#40
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 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 3,343 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 396,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.