↓ Skip to main content

Medical graduates’ preparedness to practice: a comparison of undergraduate medical school training

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 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
Medical graduates’ preparedness to practice: a comparison of undergraduate medical school training
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0859-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Miles, Joanne Kellett, Sam J. Leinster

Abstract

There is evidence that newly qualified doctors do not feel prepared to start work. This study examined views of first year Foundation doctors (F1s) regarding how prepared they felt by their undergraduate medical education for skills required during the first Foundation training year in relation to their type of training. One-hundred and eighty two F1s completed a questionnaire during their first rotation of Foundation training. Analysis was conducted by type of medical school training: Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Traditional or Reformed. F1s from medical schools with a PBL curriculum felt better prepared for tasks associated with communication and team working, and paperwork than graduates from the other medical school types; but the majority of F1s from all three groups felt well prepared for most areas of practice. Less than half of graduates in all three groups felt well prepared to deal with a patient with neurological/visual problems; write referral letters; understand drug interactions; manage pain; and cope with uncertainty. F1s also indicated that lack of induction or support on starting work was affecting their ability to work in some areas. Whilst F1s from medical schools with a PBL curriculum did feel better prepared in multiple areas compared to graduates from the other medical school types, specific areas of unpreparedness related to undergraduate and postgraduate medical training were identified across all F1s. These areas need attention to ensure F1s are optimally prepared for starting work.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 248 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 16%
Student > Bachelor 36 15%
Lecturer 19 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 6%
Student > Postgraduate 15 6%
Other 53 21%
Unknown 69 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 44%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 5%
Psychology 11 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 76 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,333,293
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,061
of 3,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,311
of 420,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#21
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 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 3,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 420,388 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 61% of its contemporaries.