↓ Skip to main content

Mobile Medical Education (MoMEd) - how mobile information resources contribute to learning for undergraduate clinical students - a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
41 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
169 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
388 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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
Mobile Medical Education (MoMEd) - how mobile information resources contribute to learning for undergraduate clinical students - a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-12-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bethany S Davies, Jethin Rafique, Tim R Vincent, Jil Fairclough, Mark H Packer, Richard Vincent, Inam Haq

Abstract

Mobile technology is increasingly being used by clinicians to access up-to-date information for patient care. These offer learning opportunities in the clinical setting for medical students but the underlying pedagogic theories are not clear. A conceptual framework is needed to understand these further. Our initial questions were how the medical students used the technology, how it enabled them to learn and what theoretical underpinning supported the learning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 388 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 8 2%
United States 6 2%
Canada 3 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Malaysia 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Bahamas 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 360 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 16%
Researcher 39 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 10%
Student > Bachelor 36 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 7%
Other 144 37%
Unknown 42 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 134 35%
Social Sciences 63 16%
Computer Science 40 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 4%
Unspecified 14 4%
Other 72 19%
Unknown 50 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 01 November 2019.
All research outputs
#773,724
of 21,331,034 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#54
of 3,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,752
of 252,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#2
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,331,034 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,010 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 98% 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 252,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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 98% of its contemporaries.