↓ Skip to main content

Interprofessional educator development

Overview of attention for article published in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, April 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
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Interprofessional educator development
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40037-018-0418-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lily C. Pien, Michaela Stiber, Allison Prelosky, Colleen Y. Colbert

Abstract

We describe an interprofessional educator development program, designed intentionally, that was implemented at an academic healthcare centre. In 2014, we purposefully adapted our pre-existing educator development program to be able to include all interprofessional educators at our institution. The program's goals were to enhance educator skills, a common need due to requirements of accreditation, and to create a local interprofessional community of teachers. The framework of the program was based upon adult learning principles, reflective practice, experiential learning and peer groups, all key characteristics of faculty development programs. It was also longitudinal and immersive. Kirkpatrick's program evaluation model was used for identifying results; participants' self-reported evaluation forms were collected and their narrative comments were analyzed. After we opened our educator program to all interprofessional staff, our number of program participants increased. The interprofessional participants included, but was not limited to, physicians, physician trainees, nurses, physician assistants, audiologists, perfusionists, and basic science researchers. Our number of program sessions and program faculty were expanded. Our interprofessional participants reported that they were able to learn essential knowledge, skills and attitudes for their growth and development as educators, in the context of an interprofessional community, while also appreciating the diversity of their peers. We share our insights with the redesign and implementation of an interprofessional educator program so that others can learn from our experiences. Key takeaways include using a conceptual framework for teaching effectiveness, involving interprofessional stakeholders and obtaining their perspectives, reviewing interprofessional literature and competencies, and highlighting best practices across the disciplines.

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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Lecturer 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 20 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 18 38%
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 18 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#463
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,973
of 324,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#19
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 324,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.