↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of performance in a four year graduate entry medical programme and a traditional five/six year programme

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Comparison of performance in a four year graduate entry medical programme and a traditional five/six year programme
Published in
BMC Medical Education, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12909-014-0248-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette T Byrne, Richard Arnett, Tom Farrell, Seamus Sreenan

Abstract

BackgroundIn 2006 the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, (RCSI), introduced the first four year Graduate Entry Programme (GEP) in medicine in Ireland in line with national policy to broaden access to medical education. One concern considered at the time, was whether the GEP students could be trained to the same standard as their undergraduate Direct Entry Programme (DEP, five/ six year duration) counterparts in the shorter time frame. Since students from both cohorts undertake the same examinations in the final two years, it is possible to directly compare GEP vs DEP outcomes. The primary aim of the current study was to analyse the comparative performance of GEP and DEP students undergoing these examinations between 2008 and 2013.MethodsScores from five assessments performed during the final two years were transformed to z scores for each student and 4 scores for the penultimate year were summed to create a unit weighted composite score. The resultant scores for each of the two years were used to assess the comparative performance of GEP vs DEP cohorts and to perform sub-cohort analyses of GEP outcomes.ResultsIn all cohorts/years examined, evidence demonstrated significantly better assessment outcomes for the GEP group for the final two years¿ examinations as compared with the DEP group. In all but one cohort examined, this advantage was retained when nationality factors were excluded. Further analyses showed no difference in outcomes between GEP students having science vs. non-science backgrounds and or between those from EU vs non-EU backgrounds. Finally, data suggested weak correlations between total composite scores and entry scores in American (r¿=¿0.15) and Australian (r¿=¿0.08) medical school admissions tests.ConclusionsWe have shown for the first time in Ireland, that graduate-entry students perform at least as well, or even better, than a corresponding undergraduate-entry group. Moreover, having a scientific background on entry to the GEP confers no advantage in final assessments. These data provide evidence of the viability of the graduate entry route into medical education in Ireland.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iraq 1 3%
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 21%
Lecturer 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Social Sciences 5 15%
Psychology 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 October 2021.
All research outputs
#15,061,422
of 25,217,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,968
of 3,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,135
of 373,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#29
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,217,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 373,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.