↓ Skip to main content

A preliminary investigation to explore the cognitive resources of physicians experiencing difficulty in training

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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 preliminary investigation to explore the cognitive resources of physicians experiencing difficulty in training
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0918-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Patterson, Fran Cousans, Iain Coyne, Jo Jones, Sheona Macleod, Lara Zibarras

Abstract

Treating patients is complex, and research shows that there are differences in cognitive resources between physicians who experience difficulties, and those who do not. It is possible that differences in some cognitive resources could explain the difficulties faced by some physicians. In this study, we explore differences in cognitive resources between different groups of physicians (that is, between native (UK) physicians and International Medical Graduates (IMG); those who continue with training versus those who were subsequently removed from the training programme); and also between physicians experiencing difficulties compared with the general population. A secondary evaluation was conducted on an anonymised dataset provided by the East Midlands Professional Support Unit (PSU). One hundred and twenty one postgraduate trainee physicians took part in an Educational Psychology assessment through PSU. Referrals to the PSU were mainly on the basis of problems with exam progression and difficulties in communication skills, organisation and confidence. Cognitive resources were assessed using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). Physicians were categorised into three PSU outcomes: 'Continued in training', 'Removed from training' and 'Active' (currently accessing the PSU). Using a one-sample Z test, we compared the referred physician sample to a UK general population sample on the WAIS-IV and found the referred sample significantly higher in Verbal Comprehension (VCI; z = 8.78) and significantly lower in Working Memory (WMI; z = -4.59). In addition, the native sample were significantly higher in Verbal Comprehension than the UK general population sample (VCI; native physicians: z = 9.95, p < .001, d = 1.25), whilst there was a lesser effect for the difference between the IMG sample and the UK general population (z = 2.13, p = .03, d = 0.29). Findings also showed a significant difference in VCI scores between those physicians who were 'Removed from training' and those who 'Continued in training'. Our results suggest it is important to understand the cognitive resources of physicians to provide a more focussed explanation of those who experience difficulties in training. This will help to implement more targeted interventions to help physicians develop compensatory strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Lecturer 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 16 30%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 8 15%

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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,695,297
of 15,920,653 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#841
of 2,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,056
of 268,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,920,653 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 268,907 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 65% of its contemporaries.
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