↓ Skip to main content

A literature review on observational learning for medical motor skills and anesthesia teaching

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
A literature review on observational learning for medical motor skills and anesthesia teaching
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10459-015-9646-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ligia Cordovani, Daniel Cordovani

Abstract

Motor skill practice is very important to improve performance of medical procedures and could be enhanced by observational practice. Observational learning could be particularly important in the medical field considering that patients' safety prevails over students' training. The mechanism of observational learning is based on the mirror neuron system, originally discovered in the monkey pre-motor cortex. Today we know that humans have a similar system, and its role is to understand and reproduce the observed actions of others. Many studies conclude that humans are able to plan and to make movements based on visual information by mapping a representation of observed actions, especially when the motor system is committed to do it. Moreover most researchers considered observational learning effective for complex skills, such as medical procedures. Additionally, observational learning could play a relevant role during anesthesia training since the learner works in pairs most of the time (dyad practice). Some teaching approaches should be taken into consideration: an implicit engagement of the observer motor system is required, immediate feedback seems to have an important effect, and a combination of observational and physical practice could be better than physical practice alone. In an environment where effectiveness and efficacy are essential, observational learning seems to fit well.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 27%
Psychology 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 16 21%
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 30 December 2016.
All research outputs
#12,938,208
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#473
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,957
of 284,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 284,522 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.