↓ Skip to main content

A national follow‐up survey of UK graduates opinion of undergraduate oral surgery teaching

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Dental Education, June 2015
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A national follow‐up survey of UK graduates opinion of undergraduate oral surgery teaching
Published in
European Journal of Dental Education, June 2015
DOI 10.1111/eje.12158
Pubmed ID
Authors

M Macluskey, S Shepherd, E Carter, Y Bulsara, J A Durham, A Bell, A Dargue, C Emanuel, C Freeman, J Jones, N Khawaja, R Leeson, J Marley, M Andiappan, L Millsopp, N Nayyer, T Renton, K Taylor, P Thomson, V Toedtling

Abstract

A national follow-up survey was undertaken to determine whether dental graduates from 2009 perceived that their undergraduate oral surgery education had equipped them for general dental practice 4 years after graduating. Graduates from the same 13 United Kingdom dental schools who had taken part in the original survey were invited to take part in this follow-up online survey. Their contact details were identified via the general dental council register, social media and alumni groups. In total, 161 responded (2009b) which represents 16% of the graduates of the original survey in 2009a. A similar percentage of these respondents perceived that the teaching in oral surgery had given them sufficient knowledge to undertake independent practice (83% and 79% in 2009a and 2009b, respectively). Most respondents (99% in both years) reported confidence in undertaking simple forceps exodontia. Confidence in surgical exodontia was poor in both surveys, but one area that appeared improved in the follow-up related to the sectioning of teeth (84% in 2009b compared with 49% in 2009a). Areas of weakness identified in 2009 were reported to be improved in the follow-up. This follow-up survey supports the findings of the original survey. Future longitudinal studies would allow institutions to identify possible weaknesses in their curriculum and to track the career development of their graduates and facilitate robust data collection.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 31%
Unspecified 11 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 26%
Social Sciences 12 20%
Unspecified 11 18%
Psychology 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 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 23 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,782,490
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Dental Education
#136
of 409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,182
of 277,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Dental Education
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 409 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 277,923 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.