↓ Skip to main content

What do beginning students, in a rurally focused medical course, think about rural practice?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
What do beginning students, in a rurally focused medical course, think about rural practice?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0829-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Young, Daniel B. Lindsay, Robin A Ray

Abstract

Medical schools may select students for their attitudes towards rural medical practice, yet the rural-urban disparity in availability of medical practitioners and services has not diminished in recent times despite government initiatives and increasing numbers being trained for a career in medicine. One medical school, with a focus on rural and remote medicine, aims to select students with positive perceptions for rural medical practice. A research project collected data on the perceptions of these medical students in the first week of their medical studies. Students completed a low stakes essay on the life and work of a rural doctor. Initially, this formed part of a literacy assessment to determine any students requiring remediation. All students were asked if they would consent to their essay being reviewed for a research project. Data was obtained from those students who consented and handed their essays in for review. The 103 student essays underwent thematic analysis and sentences were coded into three main themes of rural lifestyle, doctor role and rural practice. Second level themes were further elicited and results were quantified according to whether they were positive or negative. Positive themes included rural lifestyle, doctor role, views of doctor, impact on community, broader work and skills knowledge, and better relationships with community and patients. Negative themes included doctor's health, pressure on doctor, family problems, greater workload, privacy and confidentiality issues, cultural issues, isolation, limited resources and financial impacts. Quantitisation of this data was used to transform essay sentences into a numerical form which allowed statistical analysis and comparison of perceptions using Z tests. No significant differences on the number of positive and negative responses for rural lifestyle and rural practice were found. The rural doctor role had a significantly more positive than negative views. Significant differences were found for positive views of the rural doctor role and negative views of rural practice. Participants from a capital city background reported a significantly higher percentage of responses related to negative views of rural practice than their regional and rural counterparts. Students from capital city areas had significantly more negative views about the rural doctor role, especially related to workload, limited resources and isolation than students from rural and regional areas. Students entering medical school already have both positive and negative views about the life and work of a rural doctor. Those students from capital city areas have significantly more negative views despite being selected to enter a medical course with a rural focus based on their expressed rural perceptions. Further work is required to refine selection criteria and the year level experiences and learning opportunities which may positively influence student perceptions about rural medical practice to overcome early negative perceptions at the beginning of medical school.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 19 26%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,638,545
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,994
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,801
of 424,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#29
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 424,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.