↓ Skip to main content

Performance of International Medical Students In psychosocial medicine

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, July 2017
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Performance of International Medical Students In psychosocial medicine
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0950-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Huhn, J. Lauter, D. Roesch Ely, E. Koch, A. Möltner, W. Herzog, F. Resch, S. C. Herpertz, C. Nikendei

Abstract

Particularly at the beginning of their studies, international medical students face a number of language-related, social and intercultural challenges. Thus, they perform poorer than their local counterparts in written and oral examinations as well as in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) in the fields of internal medicine and surgery. It is still unknown how international students perform in an OSCE in the field of psychosocial medicine compared to their local fellow students. All students (N = 1033) taking the OSCE in the field of psychosocial medicine and an accompanying written examination in their eighth or ninth semester between 2012 and 2015 were included in the analysis. The OSCE consisted of four different stations, in which students had to perform and manage a patient encounter with simulated patients suffering from 1) post-traumatic stress disorder, 2) schizophrenia, 3) borderline personality disorder and 4) either suicidal tendency or dementia. Students were evaluated by trained lecturers using global checklists assessing specific professional domains, namely building a relationship with the patient, conversational skills, anamnesis, as well as psychopathological findings and decision-making. International medical students scored significantly poorer than their local peers (p < .001; η(2) = .042). Within the specific professional domains assessed, they showed poorer scores, with differences in conversational skills showing the highest effect (p < .001; η(2) = .053). No differences emerged within the multiple-choice examination (p = .127). International students showed poorer results in clinical-practical exams in the field of psychosocial medicine, with conversational skills yielding the poorest scores. However, regarding factual and practical knowledge examined via a multiple-choice test, no differences emerged between international and local students. These findings have decisive implications for relationship building in the doctor-patient relationship.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 17%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 40 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 40 36%
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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,869,208
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,845
of 3,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,651
of 312,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#27
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 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 3,356 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 312,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.