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 |
Student learning in interprofessional practice-based environments: what does theory say?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-015-0492-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chris Roberts, Koshila Kumar |
| Abstract |
Student learning in interprofessional practice-based environments has garnered significant attention in the last decade, and is reflected in a corresponding increase in published literature on the topic. We review the current empirical literature with specific attention to the theoretical frameworks that have been used to illustrate how and why student learning occurs in interprofessional practice-based environments. Our findings show there are relatively few theoretical-based studies available to guide educators and researchers alike. We recommend a more considered and consistent use of theory and suggest that professional identity and socio-cultural frameworks offer promising avenues for advancing understandings of student learning and professional identity development within interprofessional practice-based environments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 24% |
| United States | 4 | 24% |
| Canada | 2 | 12% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 59% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 35% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 25% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,911,088
of 24,387,992 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#472
of 3,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,530
of 396,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#4
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,387,992 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,730 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 87% 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 396,507 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.