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 |
Monitoring progression of clinical reasoning skills during health sciences education using the case method – a qualitative observational study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-017-1002-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristina Orban, Maria Ekelin, Gudrun Edgren, Olof Sandgren, Pia Hovbrandt, Eva K. Persson |
| Abstract |
Outcome- or competency-based education is well established in medical and health sciences education. Curricula are based on courses where students develop their competences and assessment is also usually course-based. Clinical reasoning is an important competence, and the aim of this study was to monitor and describe students' progression in professional clinical reasoning skills during health sciences education using observations of group discussions following the case method. In this qualitative study students from three different health education programmes were observed while discussing clinical cases in a modified Harvard case method session. A rubric with four dimensions - problem-solving process, disciplinary knowledge, character of discussion and communication - was used as an observational tool to identify clinical reasoning. A deductive content analysis was performed. The results revealed the students' transition over time from reasoning based strictly on theoretical knowledge to reasoning ability characterized by clinical considerations and experiences. Students who were approaching the end of their education immediately identified the most important problem and then focused on this in their discussion. Practice knowledge increased over time, which was seen as progression in the use of professional language, concepts, terms and the use of prior clinical experience. The character of the discussion evolved from theoretical considerations early in the education to clinical reasoning in later years. Communication within the groups was supportive and conducted with a professional tone. Our observations revealed progression in several aspects of students' clinical reasoning skills on a group level in their discussions of clinical cases. We suggest that the case method can be a useful tool in assessing quality in health sciences education. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 102 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 11 | 11% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 22% |
| Unknown | 36 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 39 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,914,959
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,631
of 3,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,714
of 316,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#46
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,363 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 316,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.