↓ Skip to main content

Free text adversity statements as part of a contextualised admissions process: a qualitative analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Free text adversity statements as part of a contextualised admissions process: a qualitative analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1158-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lysa E. Owen, Stephanie Ann Anderson, Johnathan S. Dowell

Abstract

Medical schools globally are encouraged to widen access and participation for students from less privileged backgrounds. Many strategies have been implemented to address this inequality, but much still needs to be done to ensure fair access for all. In the literature, adverse circumstances include financial issues, poor educational experience and lack of professional-status parents. In order to take account of adverse circumstances faced by applicants, The University of Dundee School of Medicine offers applicants the opportunity to report circumstances which may have resulted in disadvantage. Applicants do this by completing a free text statement, known as an 'adversity statement', in addition to the other application information. This study analysed adversity statements submitted by applicants during two admissions cycles. Analysis of content and theme was done to identify the information applicants wished to be taken into consideration, and what range of adverse circumstances individuals reported. This study used a qualitative approach with thematic analysis to categorise the adversity statements. The data was initially analysed to create a coding framework which was then applied to the whole data set. Each coded segment was then analysed for heterogeneity and homogeneity, segments merged into generated themes, or to create sub-themes. The data set comprised a total of 384 adversity statements. These showed a wide range of detail involving family, personal health, education and living circumstances. Some circumstances, such as geographical location, have been identified and explored in previous research, while others, such as long term health conditions, have had less attention in the literature. The degree of impact, the length of statement and degree of detail, demonstrated wide variation between submissions. This study adds to the debate on best practice in contextual admissions and raises awareness of the range of circumstances and impact applicants wish to be considered. The themes which emerged from the data included family, school, personal health, and geographical location issues. Descriptions of the degree of impact that an adverse circumstance had on educational or other attainment was found to vary substantially from statements indicating minor, impact through to circumstances stated as causing major impact.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Other 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 24 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,174,782
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,007
of 3,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,425
of 328,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#28
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,370 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 328,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 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 64% of its contemporaries.