↓ Skip to main content

Team decision making: design, implementation and evaluation of an interprofessional education activity for undergraduate health science students

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Interprofessional Care, May 2013
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
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Team decision making: design, implementation and evaluation of an interprofessional education activity for undergraduate health science students
Published in
Journal of Interprofessional Care, May 2013
DOI 10.3109/13561820.2013.784731
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine C. Neville, Rachel Petro, Geoffrey K. Mitchell, Susannah Brady

Abstract

An undergraduate health science student curriculum activity in interprofessional education (IPE) focused on team decision making was piloted. The IPE activity included a lecture, small group learning activity and an onsite observation of an interprofessional health care team (IPHCT) meeting. Measures included the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning scale, Interdisciplinary Education Perception scale and the Role Perception Questionnaires. The students completed a workbook to assess decision making capacity in IPHCTs. The results indicated that students (n = 61) were willing to share their knowledge and skills as a way of understanding clinical problems in the workplace and had professionally oriented perceptions and related affective domains. They also showed a positive role perception of their own role and that of other professions. Analysis of the workbooks revealed that students were able to identify positive and negative impacts on effective team decision making and its effects on a patient centred approach to health care.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Lecturer 6 8%
Other 20 26%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 26%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Psychology 7 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 14 18%
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 23 May 2013.
All research outputs
#13,037,496
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Interprofessional Care
#703
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,285
of 196,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Interprofessional Care
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 196,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.