↓ Skip to main content

The Association of Readiness for Interprofessional Learning with empathy, motivation and professional identity development in medical students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
228 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
The Association of Readiness for Interprofessional Learning with empathy, motivation and professional identity development in medical students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1248-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cora L. F. Visser, Janneke A. Wilschut, Ulviye Isik, Stéphanie M. E. van der Burgt, Gerda Croiset, Rashmi A. Kusurkar

Abstract

The Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale is among the first scales developed for measurement of attitude towards interprofessional learning (IPL). However, the conceptual framework of the RIPLS still lacks clarity. We investigated the association of the RIPLS with professional identity, empathy and motivation, with the intention of relating RIPLS to other well-known concepts in healthcare education, in an attempt to clarify the concept of readiness. Readiness for interprofessional learning, professional identity development, empathy and motivation of students for medical school, were measured in all 6 years of the medical curriculum. The association of professional identity development, empathy and motivation with readiness was analyzed using linear regression. Empathy and motivation significantly explained the variance in RIPLS subscale Teamwork & Collaboration. Gender and belonging to the first study year had a unique positive contribution in explaining the variance of the RIPLS subscales Positive and Negative Professional Identity, whereas motivation had no contribution. More compassionate care, as an affective component of empathy, seemed to diminish readiness for IPL. Professional Identity, measured as affirmation or denial of the identification with a professional group, had no contribution in the explanation of the variance in readiness. The RIPLS is a suboptimal instrument, which does not clarify the 'what' and 'how' of IPL in a curriculum. This study suggests that students' readiness for IPE may benefit from a combination with the cognitive component of empathy ('Perspective taking') and elements in the curriculum that promote autonomous motivation.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 228 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 10%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Lecturer 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Unspecified 12 5%
Other 59 26%
Unknown 82 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 13%
Social Sciences 20 9%
Unspecified 12 5%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 93 41%
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 30 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,211,990
of 24,676,547 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#549
of 3,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,141
of 334,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#15
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,676,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,804 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 334,630 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 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.