| Title |
Teaching Structure: A Qualitative Evaluation of a Structural Competency Training for Resident Physicians
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-016-3924-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joshua Neff, Kelly R. Knight, Shannon Satterwhite, Nick Nelson, Jenifer Matthews, Seth M. Holmes |
| Abstract |
The influence of societal inequities on health has long been established, but such content has been incorporated unevenly into medical education and clinical training. Structural competency calls for medical education to highlight the important influence of social, political, and economic factors on health outcomes. This article describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of a structural competency training for medical residents. A California family medicine residency program serving a patient population predominantly (88 %) with income below 200 % of the federal poverty level. A cohort of 12 residents in the family residency program. The training was designed to help residents recognize and develop skills to respond to illness and health as the downstream effects of social, political, and economic structures. The training was evaluated via qualitative analysis of surveys gathered immediately post-training (response rate 100 %) and a focus group 1 month post-training (attended by all residents not on service). Residents reported that the training had a positive impact on their clinical practice and relationships with patients. They also reported feeling overwhelmed by increased recognition of structural influences on patient health, and indicated a need for further training and support to address these influences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 71% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 147 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 29 | 20% |
| Unknown | 42 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 46 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 22 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,924,921
of 25,540,105 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,452
of 8,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,951
of 418,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#23
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,540,105 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 418,079 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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 71% of its contemporaries.