↓ Skip to main content

The do’s, don’t and don’t knows of supporting transition to more independent practice

Overview of attention for article published in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
The do’s, don’t and don’t knows of supporting transition to more independent practice
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40037-018-0403-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Yardley, Michiel Westerman, Maggie Bartlett, J Mark Walton, Julie Smith, Ed Peile

Abstract

Transitions are traditionally viewed as challenging for clinicians. Throughout medical career pathways, clinicians need to successfully navigate successive transitions as they become progressively more independent practitioners. In these guidelines, we aim to synthesize the evidence from the literature to provide guidance for supporting clinicians in their development of independence, and highlight areas for further research. Drawing upon D3 method guidance, four key themes universal to medical career transitions and progressive independence were identified by all authors through discussion and consensus from our own experience and expertise: workplace learning, independence and responsibility, mentoring and coaching, and patient perspectives. A scoping review of the literature was conducted using Medline database searches in addition to the authors' personal archives and reference snowballing searches. 387 articles were identified and screened. 210 were excluded as not relevant to medical transitions (50 at title screen; 160 at abstract screen). 177 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; a further 107 were rejected (97 did not include career transitions in their study design; 10 were review articles; the primary references of these were screened for inclusion). 70 articles were included of which 60 provided extractable data for the final qualitative synthesis. Across the four key themes, seven do's, two don'ts and seven don't knows were identified, and the strength of evidence was graded for each of these recommendations. The two strongest messages arising from current literature are first, transitions should not be viewed as one moment in time: career trajectories are a continuum with valuable opportunities for personal and professional development throughout. Second, learning needs to be embedded in practice and learners provided with authentic and meaningful learning opportunities. In this paper, we propose evidence-based guidelines aimed at facilitating such transitions through the fostering of progressive independence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 12%
Other 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 38 28%
Unknown 38 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 43%
Social Sciences 14 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Psychology 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 44 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 02 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,481,893
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#57
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,517
of 449,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 449,219 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.