↓ Skip to main content

Summer undergraduate research: A new pipeline for pain clinical practice and research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2016
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 (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters
1 Wikipedia page


7 Dimensions

Readers on

43 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.
Summer undergraduate research: A new pipeline for pain clinical practice and research
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0648-7
Pubmed ID

Benedict J. Kolber, Jelena M. Janjic, John A. Pollock, Kevin J. Tidgewell


Most medical schools fail to provide adequate training of clinicians in the treatment of pain. Similarly, despite the fact that over 1/3 of Americans suffer from chronic pain, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for pain represents only ~1 % of the NIH budget. These issues may dissuade students from pursing pain in their clinical and research careers. To address these gaps in training and funding, we argue that exposing students to pain science early in their careers, at the undergraduate level, may be an effective method to develop a pipeline for future pain clinicians and scientists. To highlight our argument, we will describe our recent successful implementation of a cross-disciplinary and community-engaged biomedical summer research program. The Pain Undergraduate Research Experience (PURE) summer program involved both off-site and on-site experiences to expose undergraduate students to the range of careers in the pain field from basic science to clinical practice. The objective of the 10-week long PURE program was to evaluate whether a combination of basic science research, clinical practice visits, and patient interactions would increase student understanding of and exposure to the underlying science of pain. A pre-post cohort study was used without a comparison group. Entry and exit surveys were used to evaluate students' perceptions about pain clinical practice and research, student interest in pain, and student confidence about communicating about pain and doing basic science pain research. Students reported significant increases to a number of questions in the survey. Questions were scored on 5 point Likert scales and there was significant increases in student understanding of what life is like with chronic pain (2.6 vs 4.3 post survey), their confidence in explaining pain to a patient (2.8 vs 4.1) or researcher (2.8 vs 4), and their comfort with pain terminology(2.8 vs 3.9). With the PURE program, we wanted to entice top undergraduates to consider pain as a future area of study, practice, and/or research. We present a model that can be easily implemented at research universities throughout the United States.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor 4 9%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Psychology 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 4 9%

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 16 November 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,851,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 261,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,851,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 261,768 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them