↓ Skip to main content

Cultivating Medical Education Research Mentorship as a Pathway Towards High Quality Medical Education Research

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Cultivating Medical Education Research Mentorship as a Pathway Towards High Quality Medical Education Research
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3295-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca D. Blanchard, Paul F. Visintainer, Jeffrey La Rochelle

Abstract

The lack of effective and consistent research mentorship and research mentor training in both undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) is a critical constraint on the development of innovative and high quality medical education research. Clinical research mentors are often not familiar with the nuances and context of conducting education research. Clinician-educators, meanwhile, often lack the skills in developing and conducting rigorous research. Mentors who are not prepared to articulate potential scholarship pathways for their mentees risk limiting the mentee's progress in early stages of their career. In fact, the relative paucity of experienced medical education research mentors arguably contributes to the perpetuation of a cycle leading to fewer well-trained researchers in medical education, a lack of high quality medical education research, and relative stagnation in medical education innovation. There is a path forward, however. Integration of doctoral-level educators, structured inter-departmental efforts, and external mentorship provide opportunities for faculty to gain traction in their medical education research efforts. An investment in medical education research mentors will ensure rigorous research for high quality innovation in medical education and patient care.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 13%
Professor 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 18 33%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 48%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Psychology 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,272,753
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,512
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,980
of 265,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#36
of 126 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 73rd 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 54% 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 265,850 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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 70% of its contemporaries.