↓ Skip to main content

Are Canadian General Internal Medicine training program graduates well prepared for their future careers?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Are Canadian General Internal Medicine training program graduates well prepared for their future careers?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2006
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-6-56
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon E Card, Linda Snell, Brian O'Brien

Abstract

At a time of increased need and demand for general internists in Canada, the attractiveness of generalist careers (including general internal medicine, GIM) has been falling as evidenced by the low number of residents choosing this specialty. One hypothesis for the lack of interest in a generalist career is lack of comfort with the skills needed to practice after training, and the mismatch between the tertiary care, inpatient training environment and "real life". This project was designed to determine perceived effectiveness of training for 10 years of graduates of Canadian GIM programs to assist in the development of curriculum and objectives for general internists that will meet the needs of graduates and ultimately society. Mailed survey designed to explore perceived importance of training for and preparation for various aspects of Canadian GIM practice. After extensive piloting of the survey, including a pilot survey of two universities to improve the questionnaire, all graduates of the 16 universities over the previous ten years were surveyed. Gaps (difference between importance and preparation) were demonstrated in many of the CanMEDS 2000/2005 competencies. Medical problems of pregnancy, perioperative care, pain management, chronic care, ambulatory care and community GIM rotations were the medical expert areas with the largest gaps. Exposure to procedural skills was perceived to be lacking. Some procedural skills valued as important for current GIM trainees and performed frequently (example ambulatory ECG interpretation) had low preparation ratings by trainees. Other areas of perceived discrepancy between training and practice included: manager role (set up of an office), health advocate (counseling for prevention, for example smoking cessation), and professional (end of life issues, ethics). Graduates of Canadian GIM training programs over the last ten years have identified perceived gaps between training and important areas for practice. They have identified competencies that should be emphasized in Canadian GIM programs. Ongoing review of graduate's perceptions of training programs as it applies to their current practice is important to ensure ongoing appropriateness of training programs. This information will be used to strengthen GIM training programs in Canada.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Malaysia 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 41%
Psychology 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 October 2015.
All research outputs
#6,070,300
of 23,406,603 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#964
of 3,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,549
of 155,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,406,603 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,455 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 155,468 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.