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 |
"The era of single disease cowboys is out": evaluating the experiences of students, faculty, and collaborators in an interdisciplinary global health training program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Globalization and Health, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12992-018-0343-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Kalbarczyk, Nina A. Martin, Emily Combs, Marie Ward, Peter J. Winch |
| Abstract |
Global Health is an inherently interdisciplinary field but overseas training in global health, particularly among health science institutions, has been an 'individual' or 'individual discipline' experience. Team-based training is an approach to global health education which is increasing in popularity; research on team-training demonstrates that teams are more productive than individuals. In 2015, the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health (CGH) developed the Global Established Multidisciplinary Sites (GEMS) program, an interdisciplinary training program which was designed to establish a new norm in global health training by bringing interdisciplinary teams of faculty and students together to identify and solve complex global health challenges. This research aims to evaluate the program's first year and contribute to the literature on interdisciplinary team training. We conducted 22 in-depth interviews with students, faculty, and local collaborators from 3 GEMS project sites. Findings were analyzed for themes through a framework approach. The program exposed students, faculty, and collaborators to a wide range of disciplines in global health. Students' desire to learn how other disciplines contribute to global health solutions was an important motivator for joining GEMS; many participants including faculty and collaborators valued exposure to multiple disciplines. Mentorship and communication were a challenge across all teams in part due to members having distinct "disciplinary languages". Balancing disciplinary representation on teams and establishing work plans were also key challenges. Based on the data the CGH provides four recommendations for institutions developing global health interdisciplinary teams to optimize team functioning and address challenges in mentorship, language, and roles: 1) address interdisciplinary communication early, 2) develop work plans during group formation, 3) meet as a team prior to travel, and 4) establish regular check ins. This article provides first-hand reflections on interdisciplinary team experiences in a global context and provides a pathway for the development of innovative strategies in global health training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 18% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
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 24 November 2018.
All research outputs
#15,013,132
of 25,137,221 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#979
of 1,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,056
of 336,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#31
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,137,221 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 1,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 336,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.