↓ Skip to main content

On learning in the clinical environment

Overview of attention for article published in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
Title
On learning in the clinical environment
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40037-018-0441-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matilda Liljedahl

Abstract

The clinical environment has been increasingly acknowledged as an important setting for learning within healthcare professional education. In particular, researchers have highlighted the need to advance the knowledge on the social nature of learning in the workplace setting. The aim of the thesis was to explore workplace learning among undergraduate medical and nursing students. The thesis adopted a socio-cultural perspective on learning and employed a qualitative approach embedded in an interpretative tradition of inquiry. Four consecutive studies were included in the thesis, the first one designed according to qualitative description whereas the other three had an ethnographic approach. Data were collected through individual interviews and field observations. Content analysis and thematic analysis were employed. For the medical students, workplace learning entailed access to a variety of activities in the role of a marginal member of the healthcare team. Medical students demonstrated an adaptive approach to workplace learning. For the nursing students, workplace learning involved being entrusted to hold responsibility for patient care and the need to negotiate their basic values with those of the workplaces. Nursing students showed a hesitant approach to workplace learning. Workplace learning was built upon varying theoretical perspectives of learning in the medical and nursing contexts respectively. The main message in the thesis argued for an upgrading of students as a powerful and active stakeholder in workplace learning, so as not to view students as passive consumers of clinical education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Lecturer 8 6%
Researcher 8 6%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 48 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 17%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 47 37%
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 27 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#405
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,716
of 339,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 339,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.