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 |
Poor return on investment: investigating the barriers that cause low credentialing yields in a resource-limited clinical ultrasound training programme
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12245-018-0168-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hein Lamprecht, Gustav Lemke, Daniel van Hoving, Thinus Kruger, Lee Wallis |
| Abstract |
Clinical ultrasound is commonly used in medical practices worldwide due to the multiple benefits the modality offers clinicians. Rigorous credentialing standards are necessary to safeguard patients against operator errors. The purpose of the study was to establish and analyse the barriers that specifically lead to poor credentialing success within a resource-limited clinical ultrasound training programme. An electronic cross-sectional survey was e-mailed to all trainees who attended the introductory clinical ultrasound courses held in Cape Town since its inception in 2009 to 2013. All trainees were followed until they completed their training programme in 2015. Only one fifth of trainees (n = 43, 19.7%), who entered the Cape Town training programme, credentialed successfully. Ninety (n = 90, 41.3%) trainees responded to the survey. Eighty-six (n = 86) surveys were included for analysis. Time constraints were the highest ranked barrier amongst all trainees. Access barriers (to trainers and ultrasound machines) were the second highest ranked amongst the non-credentialed group. A combination between access and logistical barriers (e.g. difficulty in finding patients with pathology to scan) were the second highest ranked in the credentialed group. Access barriers conspire to burden the Cape Town clinical ultrasound training programme. Novel solutions are necessary to overcome these access barriers to improve future credentialing success. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 25% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 43% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,376,243
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#383
of 606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,169
of 331,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#17
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 331,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.