↓ Skip to main content

Supporting near-peer teaching in general practice: a national survey

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 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
Supporting near-peer teaching in general practice: a national survey
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0662-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thea F. van de Mortel, Peter L. Silberberg, Christine M. Ahern, Sabrina W. Pit

Abstract

Training bodies see teaching by junior doctors and vocational trainees in general practice (family medicine) as integral to a doctor's role. While there is a body of literature on teacher training programs, and on peer and near-peer teaching in hospitals and universities, there has been little examination of near-peer teaching in general practice. Near-peer teaching is teaching to those close to oneself but not at the same level in the training continuum. This study investigated the perceptions of key stakeholders on near-peer teaching in general practice, their current near-peer teaching activities, and methods of recruitment and support. A national anonymous online survey was used to obtain data on Australian stakeholders' perceptions of, and processes related to, near-peer teaching in general practice. Recruitment occurred via electronic invitations sent by training providers and stakeholder associations. Separate questionnaires, which were validated via several cycles of review and piloting, were developed for supervisors and learners. The survey included both fixed response and open response questions. Responses (n = 1,122) were obtained from 269 general practitioner supervisors, 221 general practice registrars, 319 prevocational trainees, and 313 medical students. All stakeholder groups agreed that registrars should teach learners in general practice, and 72 % of registrars, 68 % of prevocational trainees, and 33 % of medical students reported having done some teaching in this setting. Three-quarters of supervisors allowed learners to teach. Having another learner observe their consultations was the most common form of teaching for registrars and prevocational trainees. Eight percent of registrars received some remuneration for teaching. The approach used to determine teaching readiness and quality varied greatly between supervisors. Near-peer teaching was supported by the majority of stakeholders, but is underutilised and has poor structural support. Guidelines may be required to help supervisors better support learners in this role and manage quality issues related to teaching.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Other 8 11%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Lecturer 5 7%
Other 20 26%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 47%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Psychology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 19 25%
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 30 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,265,736
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,031
of 3,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,099
of 313,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#29
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 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 3,439 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 69% 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 313,021 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 70% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.