↓ Skip to main content

Virtual patients as activities: exploring the research implications of an activity theoretical stance

Overview of attention for article published in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Virtual patients as activities: exploring the research implications of an activity theoretical stance
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40037-014-0134-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel H. Ellaway

Abstract

Virtual patients are computer-based simulators of patient encounters for the purposes of instruction, practice, and assessment. Although virtual patients have been around for some time they have yet to become part of mainstream medical education. A major reason for this would seem to be a lack of clarity as to what educational value virtual patients actually have. This paper argues that virtual patients should be seen as activities rather than artifacts and that activity theory can be used to generate different ways to frame scholarship in and around virtual patients. Drawing on the work of Leont'ev and Engeström this paper describes a range of perspectives based on the operations, actions, and objectives in and around virtual patients; the use of virtual patients to mediate activities; and the sociocultural context and the participants in virtual patient activities. This approach allows us to move beyond the 'does or does not work' discourse of much of the existing scholarship around virtual patients and, to an extent, around educational technologies as a whole. Activity perspectives, and activity theory in particular, offer new horizons for research and evaluation that address many of the limitations of intervention-based paradigms of inquiry.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 42 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 28%
Social Sciences 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Computer Science 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 23%
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 11 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,595,874
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#373
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,335
of 240,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 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 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 240,285 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.