↓ Skip to main content

Effects of a work-based critical reflection program for novice nurses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 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
Effects of a work-based critical reflection program for novice nurses
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1135-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yeon Hee Kim, Ja Min, Soon Hee Kim, Sujin Shin

Abstract

Critical reflection is effective in improving students' communication abilities and confidence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a work-based critical reflection program to enhance novice nurses' clinical critical-thinking abilities, communication competency, and job performance. The present study used a quasi-experimental design. From October 2014 to August 2015, we collected data from 44 novice nurses working in an advanced general hospital in S city in Korea. Nurses in the experimental group participated in a critical reflection program for six months. Outcome variables were clinical critical-thinking skills, communication abilities, and job performance. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test and a Wilcoxon rank sum test were selected to evaluate differences in mean ranks and to assess the null hypothesis that the medians were equal across the groups. The results showed that the clinical critical-thinking skills of those in the experimental group improved significantly (p = 0.003). The differences in mean ranks of communication ability between two groups was significantly statistically different (p = 0.028). Job performance improved significantly in both the experimental group and the control group, so there was no statistical difference (p = 0.294). We therefore suggest that a critical reflection program be considered an essential tool for improving critical thinking and communication abilities among novice nurses who need to adapt to the clinical environment as quickly as possible. Further, we suggest conducting research into critical reflection programs among larger and more diverse samples.

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 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 167 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Bachelor 26 16%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 10 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 60 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 51 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 9%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 65 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,904,890
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#479
of 3,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,835
of 330,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#17
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 330,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.