↓ Skip to main content

Decentralised training for medical students: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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
Decentralised training for medical students: a scoping review
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1050-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marietjie de Villiers, Susan van Schalkwyk, Julia Blitz, Ian Couper, Kalavani Moodley, Zohray Talib, Taryn Young

Abstract

Increasingly, medical students are trained at sites away from the tertiary academic health centre. A growing body of literature identifies the benefits of decentralised clinical training for students, the health services and the community. A scoping review was done to identify approaches to decentralised training, how these have been implemented and what the outcomes of these approaches have been in an effort to provide a knowledge base towards developing a model for decentralised training for undergraduate medical students in lower and middle-income countries (LMICs). Using a comprehensive search strategy, the following databases were searched, namely EBSCO Host, ERIC, HRH Global Resources, Index Medicus, MEDLINE and WHO Repository, generating 3383 references. The review team identified 288 key additional records from other sources. Using prespecified eligibility criteria, the publications were screened through several rounds. Variables for the data-charting process were developed, and the data were entered into a custom-made online Smartsheet database. The data were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. One hundred and five articles were included. Terminology most commonly used to describe decentralised training included 'rural', 'community based' and 'longitudinal rural'. The publications largely originated from Australia, the United States of America (USA), Canada and South Africa. Fifty-five percent described decentralised training rotations for periods of more than six months. Thematic analysis of the literature on practice in decentralised medical training identified four themes, each with a number of subthemes. These themes were student learning, the training environment, the role of the community, and leadership and governance. Evident from our findings are the multiplicity and interconnectedness of factors that characterise approaches to decentralised training. The student experience is nested within a particular context that is framed by the leadership and governance that direct it, and the site and the community in which the training is happening. Each decentralised site is seen to have its own dynamic that may foreground certain elements, responding differently to enabling student learning and influencing the student experience. The insights that have been established through this review have relevance in informing the further expansion of decentralised clinical training, including in LMIC contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Other 10 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 9 6%
Other 39 25%
Unknown 46 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 55 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 08 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,129,755
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#100
of 3,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,496
of 331,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#4
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 331,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.