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 |
The potential of a self-assessment tool to identify healthcare professionals’ strengths and areas in need of professional development to aid effective facilitation of group-based, person-centered diabetes education
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-017-1003-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vibeke Stenov, Gitte Wind, Timothy Skinner, Susanne Reventlow, Nana Folmann Hempler |
| Abstract |
Healthcare professionals' person-centered communication skills are pivotal for successful group-based diabetes education. However, healthcare professionals are often insufficiently equipped to facilitate person-centeredness and many have never received post-graduate training. Currently, assessing professionals' skills in conducting group-based, person-centered diabetes education primarily focus on experts measuring and coding skills on various scales. However, learner-centered approaches such as adequate self-reflective tools have been shown to emphasize professional autonomy and promote engagement. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of a self-assessment tool to identify healthcare professionals' strengths and areas in need of professional development to aid effective facilitation of group-based, person-centered diabetes education. The study entails of two components: 1) Field observations of five different educational settings including 49 persons with diabetes and 13 healthcare professionals, followed by interviews with 5 healthcare professionals and 28 persons with type 2 diabetes. 2) One professional development workshop involving 14 healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals were asked to assess their person-centered communication skills using a self-assessment tool based on challenges and skills related to four educator roles: Embracer, Facilitator, Translator, and Initiator. Data were analyzed by hermeneutic analysis. Theories derived from theoretical model 'The Health Education Juggler' and techniques from 'Motivational Interviewing in Groups' were used as a framework to analyze data. Subsequently, the analysis from the field notes and interview transcript were compared with healthcare professionals' self-assessments of strengths and areas in need to effectively facilitate group-based, person-centered diabetes education. Healthcare professionals self-assessed the Translator and the Embracer to be the two most skilled roles whereas the Facilitator and the Initiator were identified to be the most challenged roles. Self-assessments corresponded to observations of professional skills in educational programs and were confirmed in the interviews. Healthcare professionals self-assessed the same professional skills as observed in practice. Thus, a tool to self-assess professional skills in facilitating group-based diabetes education seems to be useful as a starting point to promote self-reflections and identification of healthcare professionals' strengths and areas of need of professional development. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Researcher | 5 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 32 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 34 | 34% |
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 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,036
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,779
of 3,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,202
of 318,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#53
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 318,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.