↓ Skip to main content

Instructional practices for evidence-based practice with pre-registration allied health students: a review of recent research and developments

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Instructional practices for evidence-based practice with pre-registration allied health students: a review of recent research and developments
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10459-016-9702-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle Hitch, Kelli Nicola-Richmond

Abstract

The aim of this study is to update a previous review published in this journal on the effectiveness of teaching and assessment interventions for evidence based practice in health professions, and to determine the extent to which the five recommendations made from that review have been implemented. The Integrating Theory, Evidence and Action method was used to synthesise all published evidence from 2011 to 2015, which addressed instructional practices used for evidence based practice with pre-registration allied health students. Seventeen articles were found to meet the inclusion criteria, and were analysed for both their individual rigour and relationship to the five recommendations. The evidence reviewed in this study was diverse in both its geographical setting and the allied health disciplines represented. Most of the evidence used less rigorous methods, and the evidence base is generally exploratory in nature. To date, the five recommendations regarding instructional practices in this area have been implemented to varying degrees. Many current practices promote social negotiation, collaborative decision-making and collaborative learning, so the social constructivist approach is being adopted. However, the prior knowledge of students is not being assessed as a basis for scaffolding, communication of evidence based practice to varying audiences is rarely addressed and the role of clinicians in the learning of evidence based practice knowledge, skills, beliefs and attitudes remains limited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Lecturer 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#8,571,027
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#451
of 942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,253
of 380,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 380,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.