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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How to set up and manage a trainee-led research collaborative
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6920-14-94 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
George Dowswell, David C Bartlett, Kaori Futaba, Lisa Whisker, Thomas D Pinkney |
| Abstract |
Ensuring that doctors in training acquire sufficient knowledge, experience and understanding of medical research is a universal and longstanding issue which has been brought into sharper focus by the growth of evidence based medicine. All healthcare systems preparing doctors in training for practice have to balance the acquisition of specific clinical attitudes, knowledge and skills with the wider need to ensure doctors are equipped to remain professionally competent as medical science advances. Most professional medical bodies acknowledge that this requires trainee doctors to experience some form of research education, not only in order to carry out original research, but to acquire sufficient academic skills to become accomplished research consumers in order to remain informed throughout their professional practice. There are many barriers to accomplishing this ambitious aim. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 63% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 60 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 27% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 48% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,439,906
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#727
of 3,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,031
of 227,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#12
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,305 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 done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 227,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.