↓ Skip to main content

Barriers in the implementation of interprofessional continuing education programs – a qualitative study from Germany

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Barriers in the implementation of interprofessional continuing education programs – a qualitative study from Germany
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-14-227
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sibel V Altin, Ralf Tebest, Sibylle Kautz-Freimuth, Marcus Redaelli, Stephanie Stock

Abstract

Insufficient communication and coordination is one of the most problematic issues in German health care delivery leading to detrimental effects on health care outcomes. As a consequence interprofessional continuing education (CIPE) is gathering momentum in German health policy and health care practice aiming to enhance service quality and patient safety. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on the course of implementation and the perceived effectiveness/acceptance of CIPE in German health care. This paper describes the objectives and formal characteristics of CIPE trainings and maps important determinants influencing the success of CIPE implementation from the perspective of providers offering CIPE trainings for German health care professionals.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 22%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Engineering 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 26 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,381,794
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,732
of 3,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,718
of 259,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#45
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 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 3,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. 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 259,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.