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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Simulated learning in musculoskeletal assessment and rehabilitation education: comparing the effect of a simulation-based learning activity with a peer-based learning activity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-014-0253-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark Hecimovich, Simone Volet |
| Abstract |
Musculoskeletal disorders and diseases are leading causes of pain, physical disability, and doctor visits throughout the world. Health professionals must be trained to assess, treat through rehabilitation and monitor patients with these disorders. Yet, due to overcrowded curricula, some health education programs struggle to accommodate more than minimal training in musculoskeletal conditions. Consequently, educators in these professions must consider how traditional instruction could be complemented effectively to enhance students' preparation for the diverse musculoskeletal disorders and pathologies they may encounter. The purpose of this study was to explore the benefits that can be obtained from laboratory practice in musculoskeletal conditions with a standardised patient, rather than a peer patient, in a condensed time frame. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Chile | 2 | 1% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 159 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 25% |
| Unknown | 49 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 7% |
| Psychology | 8 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Unknown | 58 | 35% |
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 14 December 2014.
All research outputs
#20,246,428
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#3,127
of 3,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,057
of 361,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#52
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,308 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 361,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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.