↓ Skip to main content

Intellectual disability content within tertiary medical curriculum: how is it taught and by whom?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Intellectual disability content within tertiary medical curriculum: how is it taught and by whom?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1286-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian N. Trollor, Claire Eagleson, Beth Turner, Jane Tracy, Jennifer J. Torr, Seeta Durvasula, Teresa Iacono, Rachael C. Cvejic, Nicolas Lennox

Abstract

Individuals with intellectual disability experience higher rates of physical and mental health conditions compared with the general population, yet have inequitable access to health care services. Improving the workplace capacity of medical professionals to meet the needs of this population is one way to reduce barriers to care and improve health outcomes. Using diverse pedagogy appropriate to learning outcomes to teach medical students about intellectual disability is a necessary step in improving future workplace capacity. However, there is a lack of research into how, and by whom, medical students are taught about intellectual disability. The aim of this study was to investigate this through an audit of Australian medical school curricula. The Deans of Australian universities that provide accredited medical degrees (n = 20) were invited by email to participate in a two-phase audit of intellectual disability content in the curricula. Phase 1 (n = 14 schools) involved the Dean's delegate completing a telephone interview or questionnaire regarding medical course structure. If intellectual disability content was identified, a unit coordinator was invited to complete a survey regarding how this content was taught and by whom (Phase 2; n = 12 schools). There was considerable variability across Australian medical schools regarding methods used to teach content about intellectual disability. Didactic teaching methods were most frequently used (62% of units included some form of lecture), but workshops and tutorials were reasonably well represented (34% of units contained one or both). Thirty-six percent of units included two or more teaching methods. Almost all schools (83%) used some problem- and/or enquiry-based learning. Educator backgrounds included medicine, nursing, and allied health. A majority of schools (n = 9, 75%) involved people with intellectual disability designing and teaching content, but the extent to which this occurred was inconsistent. Renewing curricula around intellectual disability across all medical schools by introducing varied teaching methods and the inclusion of people with intellectual disability would assist students to develop knowledge, skills, attitudes, and confidence in intellectual disability health. Such renewal offers the potential to reduce barriers to service this population regularly face, thereby improving their health outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Student > Master 10 8%
Other 6 5%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 51 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Psychology 10 8%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 57 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 18 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,019,212
of 25,058,309 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#267
of 3,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,449
of 336,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#9
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,058,309 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,898 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 336,685 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.