↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic error in medical education: where wrongs can make rights

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, August 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Diagnostic error in medical education: where wrongs can make rights
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, August 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10459-009-9188-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin W. Eva

Abstract

This paper examines diagnostic error from an educational perspective. Rather than addressing the question of how educators in the health professions can help learners avoid error, however, the literature reviewed leads to the conclusion that educators should be working to induce error in learners, leading them to short term pain for long term gain. A variety of literatures are reviewed that suggest errors in performance are necessary pre-conditions for learning to occur such that an aversion to errors, while more comforting to the learner, is counter-productive. Similarly, research is reviewed that suggests strategies aimed at avoiding heuristic-driven diagnostic errors may successfully reduce those types of errors, but may do so at the expense of inducing errors of comprehensiveness. Taken together, the variety of studies contained suggest that diagnostic errors are often beneficial and that we as an educational community should strive to determine how to harness their pedagogical and diagnostic benefits rather than simply trying to eliminate mistakes entirely.

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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Canada 3 2%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 110 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 17%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 10%
Professor 12 10%
Other 40 33%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 52%
Social Sciences 17 14%
Psychology 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 14 11%
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 28 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,391,923
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#343
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,966
of 111,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 111,691 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.