↓ Skip to main content

Peer-assisted debriefing of multisource feedback: an exploratory qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Peer-assisted debriefing of multisource feedback: an exploratory qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1137-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jose Francois, Jeffrey Sisler, Stephanie Mowat

Abstract

The Manitoba Physician Achievement Review (MPAR) is a 360-degree feedback assessment that physicians undergo every 7 years to retain licensure. Deliberate reflection on feedback has been demonstrated to encourage practice change. The MPAR Reflection Exercise (RE), a peer-assisted debriefing tool, was developed whereby the physician selects a peer with whom to review and reflect on feedback, committing to change. This qualitative study explores how physicians who had undergone the MPAR used the RE, what areas of change are identified and committed to, and what they perceived as the role of reflection in the MPAR process. The MPAR RE was piloted out to a cohort of MPAR-reviewed physicians. Thematic analysis was conducted on completed exercises (n = 61). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals (n = 6) who completed the MPAR RE until saturation was reached. Physicians reviewed feedback with a range of peers, including colleagues, staff, and spouses. Many physicians were surprised by feedback, both positive and negative, but interviewees found the RE useful in processing feedback. Areas where physicians committed to change were diverse, covering all CanMEDS roles. Most physicians identified themselves as being successful in implementing change, though time, habit, and structures were cited as barriers. Peer-assisted debriefing can assist reflection of multisource feedback. It is easy to implement, is not resource-intensive, and feedback implies that it is effective at promoting change. Participants, with the aid of peers, identified areas for change, developed approaches for change, and largely thought themselves successful at implementing changes. Areas of change included all seven CanMEDS roles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 25%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Mathematics 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 15 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,094,948
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,904
of 3,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,068
of 333,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#40
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 333,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.