↓ Skip to main content

Medical Student Perceptions of Cost-Conscious Care in an Internal Medicine Clerkship: A Thematic Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Medical Student Perceptions of Cost-Conscious Care in an Internal Medicine Clerkship: A Thematic Analysis
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3324-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberly M. Tartaglia, Nicholas Kman, Cynthia Ledford

Abstract

Although as much as 87 % of all healthcare spending is directed by physicians, studies have demonstrated that they lack knowledge about the costs of medical care. Similarly, learners have not traditionally received instruction on cost-conscious care. To examine medical students' perceptions of healthcare delivery as it relates to cost consciousness DESIGN: Retrospective qualitative analysis of medical student narratives PARTICIPANTS: Third-year medical students during their inpatient internal medicine clerkship MAIN MEASURES: Students completed a reflective exercise wherein they were asked to describe a scenario in which a patient experienced lack of attention to cost-conscious care, and were asked to identify solutions and barriers. We analyzed these reflections to learn more about students' awareness and perceptions regarding the practice of cost-conscious care within our medical center. Eighty students submitted the assignment between July and December 2012. The most common problems identified included unnecessary tests and treatments (n = 69) and duplicative tests and treatments (n = 20.) With regards to solutions, students described 82 scenarios, with 125 potential solutions identified. Students most commonly used discussion with the team (speak up, ask why) as the process they would use (n = 28) and most often wanted to focus lab testing (n = 38) as the intervention. The most common barriers to high-value care included increased time and effort (n = 19), ingrained practices (n = 17), and defensive medicine or fear of missing something (n = 18.) CONCLUSIONS: Even with minimal clinical experience, medical students were able to identify instances of lack of attention to cost-conscious care as well as potential solutions. Although students identified the hierarchy in healthcare teams as a potential barrier to improving high value care, most students stated they would feel comfortable engaging the team in discussion. Future efforts to empower learners at all levels to question value decisions and to develop and implement solutions may result in improved healthcare.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Other 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 22 28%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Psychology 6 8%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,105,239
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,472
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,874
of 267,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#41
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 267,312 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.