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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Development of an international comorbidity education framework
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nurse Education Today, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.05.011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Lawson, S. Pati, J. Green, G. Messina, A. Strömberg, N. Nante, D. Golinelli, A. Verzuri, S. White, T. Jaarsma, P. Walsh, P. Lonsdale, U.T. Kadam |
| Abstract |
The increasing number of people living with multiple chronic conditions in addition to an index condition has become an international healthcare priority. Health education curricula have been developed alongside single condition frameworks in health service policy and practice and need redesigning to incorporate optimal management of multiple conditions. Our aims were to evaluate current teaching and learning about comorbidity care amongst the global population of healthcare students from different disciplines and to develop an International Comorbidity Education Framework (ICEF) for incorporating comorbidity concepts into health education. We surveyed nursing, medical and pharmacy students from England, India, Italy and Sweden to evaluate their understanding of comorbidity care. A list of core comorbidity content was constructed by an international group of higher education academics and clinicians from the same disciplines, by searching current curricula and analysing clinical frameworks and the student survey data. This list was used to develop the International Comorbidity Education Framework. The survey sample consisted of 917 students from England (42%), India (48%), Italy (8%) and Sweden (2%). The majority of students across all disciplines said that they lacked knowledge, training and confidence in comorbidity care and were unable to identify specific teaching on comorbidities. All student groups wanted further comorbidity training. The health education institution representatives found no specific references to comorbidity in current health education curricula. Current clinical frameworks were used to develop an agreed list of core comorbidity content and hence an International Comorbidity Education Framework. Based on consultation with academics and clinicians and on student feedback we developed an International Comorbidity Education Framework to promote the integration of comorbidity concepts into current healthcare curricula. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| Ireland | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 112 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 34 | 30% |
| Unknown | 29 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 30% |
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 25 May 2017.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Nurse Education Today
#1,321
of 2,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,867
of 327,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nurse Education Today
#45
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. 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 327,133 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.