| Title |
WhatsApp messenger as a tool to supplement medical education for medical students on clinical attachment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-017-0855-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lewis Raiman, Richard Antbring, Asad Mahmood |
| Abstract |
Instant messaging applications have the potential to improve and facilitate communication between hospital doctors and students, hence generating and improving learning opportunities. This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of instant messaging communication to supplement medical education for medical students whilst on clinical attachment. A total of 6 WhatsApp Messenger (WhatsApp Inc.) groups were created for medical students on clinical attachment. These were used to provide communication within Problem Based Learning (PBL) groups for a duration of 8 weeks. The frequency and type of communication were recorded. Students' opinions were evaluated through a structured interview process at the end of the study period. A thematic analysis was performed on the content of the instant messaging groups and on the results of the structured interviews. All of the participants were active in their respective messaging groups (19 students and 6 tutors). A total of 582 messages, 22 images and 19 webpage links were sent. Thematic analysis on content of the instant messaging groups identified the following themes: organisational, educational and social. Thematic analysis on the content of interviews identified themes such as the ease of use of instant messaging, benefit of instant messaging to foster understanding and learning, and the ability to access recorded discussions. The findings of this study illustrate a method by which communication within PBL groups can be facilitated by the use of instant messaging. The results indicate the feasibility and acceptability of WhatsApp Messenger in supplementing PBL teaching for medical students, and provides a framework for studies to investigate use amongst larger cohorts of students. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 12 | 30% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 13% |
| France | 3 | 8% |
| Brazil | 2 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 63% |
| Scientists | 7 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 306 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 9% |
| Researcher | 25 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 88 | 29% |
| Unknown | 83 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 81 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 30 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 18 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 49 | 16% |
| Unknown | 97 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 19 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,103,999
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#95
of 3,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,314
of 426,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#2
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 426,319 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.