↓ Skip to main content

Etiquette for medical students’ email communication with faculty members: a single-institution study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Etiquette for medical students’ email communication with faculty members: a single-institution study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0628-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Do-Hwan Kim, Hyun Bae Yoon, Dong-Mi Yoo, Sang-Min Lee, Hee-Yeon Jung, Seog Ju Kim, Jwa-Seop Shin, Seunghee Lee, Jae-Joon Yim

Abstract

Email is widely used as a means of communication between faculty members and students in medical education because of its practical and educational advantages. However, because of the distinctive nature of medical education, students' inappropriate email etiquette may adversely affect their learning as well as faculty members' perception of them. Little data on medical students' competency in professional email writing is available; therefore, this study explored the strengths and weaknesses of medical students' email etiquette and factors that contribute to professional email writing. A total of 210 emails from four faculty members at Seoul National University College of Medicine were collected. An evaluation criteria and a scoring rubric were developed based on the various email-writing guidelines. The rubric comprised 10 items, including nine items for evaluation related to the email components and one item for the assessment of global impression of politeness. Three evaluators independently assessed all emails according to the criteria. Students were identified as being 61.0 % male and 52.8 % were in the undergraduate-entry program. The sum of each component score was 62.21 out of 100 and the mean value for global impression was 2.6 out of 4. The results demonstrated that students' email etiquettes remained low-to-mediocre for most criteria, except for readability and honorifics. Three criteria, salutation (r=0.668), closing (r=0.653), and sign-off (r=0.646), showed a strong positive correlation with the global impression of politeness. Whether a student entered a graduate-entry program or an undergraduate-entry program significantly contributed to professional email writing after other variables were controlled. Although students in the graduate-entry program demonstrated a relatively superior level of email etiquette, the majority of medical students did not write emails professionally. Educating all medical students in email etiquette may well contribute to the improvement of student-faculty relationships as well as their email writing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iraq 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 70 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Lecturer 5 7%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Psychology 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 July 2020.
All research outputs
#6,993,101
of 23,372,952 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,201
of 3,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,811
of 300,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#35
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,372,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,445 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 64% 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 300,317 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.