↓ Skip to main content

Intellectual disability health content within medical curriculum: an audit of what our future doctors are taught

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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 health content within medical curriculum: an audit of what our future doctors are taught
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0625-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian N. Trollor, Beth Ruffell, Jane Tracy, Jennifer J. Torr, Seeta Durvasula, Teresa Iacono, Claire Eagleson, Nicolas Lennox

Abstract

There is a high burden of unmet health needs for people with intellectual disability. Despite experiencing significantly higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared with the general population, this group faces greater barriers to accessing healthcare. While increasing workplace capacity is one way to reduce this inequitable access, previous research indicates a scarcity of undergraduate teaching in intellectual disability. The aim of the study was to determine the extent and nature of intellectual disability content currently offered within medical degree curricula. All Australian universities (n = 20) providing accredited medical training were invited to participate in a two-phase audit via an email invitation to the Dean of each medical school. The Dean's delegate from 14 medical schools completed Phase 1, which involved a questionnaire or telephone interview about the overall medical course structure. Unit coordinators and/or teaching staff from 12 medical schools completed Phase 2, which involved an online survey about intellectual disability content within the curriculum. In Australia, medical school curricula contain a median of 2.55 h of compulsory intellectual disability content. The majority of universities only offer a small amount of compulsory content. Of compulsory units, intellectual disability teaching is minimal in sexual health and emergency medicine (only one unit offered in one school for each). Topics of key relevance in intellectual disability health such as human rights issues, interdisciplinary team work and preventative health are poorly represented in intellectual disability teaching. Elective content varies markedly across universities (1 to 122 h), but emergency medicine, women's health, men's health and many other specialist medicine areas are not represented. Inclusive practice is inconsistent in degree and nature, but a majority of universities (nine) involve people with intellectual disability in the development or delivery of content. There is a mismatch between the considerable unmet health needs of people with intellectual disability and the inconsistent teaching within medical schools. Future doctors will be better equipped to support the health and wellbeing of people with intellectual disability if curricula are enhanced in this area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 33 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Psychology 11 9%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 42 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 28 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,396,203
of 25,082,430 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#151
of 3,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,395
of 307,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#5
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,082,430 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,897 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 96% 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 307,230 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 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.