↓ Skip to main content

Developing internal medicine subspecialty fellows’ teaching skills: a needs assessment

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Developing internal medicine subspecialty fellows’ teaching skills: a needs assessment
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1283-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jakob I. McSparron, Grace C. Huang, Eli M. Miloslavsky

Abstract

For academic physicians, teaching represents an essential skill. The proliferation of educator training programs aimed at residents and medical students signals the increasing commitment of training programs to develop teaching skills in their trainees as early as possible. However, clinical fellowships represent an important opportunity to advance training as educators. In addition to enriching the pipeline of future teachers, developing fellows as teachers augments the training experience for more junior trainees and may impact patient care. Fellows' needs for programs to improve teaching skills have been largely unexplored. We conducted a multi-institutional needs assessment of internal medicine (IM) subspecialty fellows to gauge interest in teaching and improvement of teaching skills. We surveyed IM subspecialty fellows at three academic medical centers about their access to fellow-as-teacher programs and other mechanisms to improve their teaching skills during fellowship. We also elicited their attitudes towards teaching and interest in training related to teaching skills. One hundred eighty-three fellows representing 20 programs and nine different subspecialties responded to the survey (48% response rate). The majority of participants (67%) reported having no specific training focused on teaching skills and only 12% reported receiving regular feedback about their teaching during their fellowship. Seventy-nine percent of fellows anticipated teaching to be part of their careers, and 22% planned to participate in medical education scholarship. Fellows reported a strong interest in teaching and programs aimed at improving their teaching skills. The majority of fellows reported a lack of mechanisms to advance their teaching skills as fellows, despite anticipating teaching to be an important aspect of their future careers and having strong interest in such programs. Our findings at three academic medical centers confirm a lost opportunity among subspecialty fellowships to accelerate teaching skills development for future educators.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Unspecified 2 13%
Librarian 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Psychology 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 29 December 2019.
All research outputs
#4,521,627
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#734
of 3,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,325
of 340,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#12
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,387 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 78% 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 340,828 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.