↓ Skip to main content

Post graduate clinical placements: evaluating benefits and challenges with a mixed methods cross sectional design

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Post graduate clinical placements: evaluating benefits and challenges with a mixed methods cross sectional design
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0575-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny Yiend, Derek K. Tracy, Brian Sreenan, Valentina Cardi, Tina Foulkes, Katerina Koutsantoni, Eugenia Kravariti, Kate Tchanturia, Lucy Willmott, Sukhi Shergill, Gabriel Reedy

Abstract

Systematic evaluations of clinical placements are rare, especially when offered alongside academic postgraduate courses. An evidence-based approach is important to allow pedagogically-driven provision, rather than that solely governed by opinion or market demand. Our evaluation assessed a voluntary clinical placement scheme allied to a mental health course. Data were collected over academic years 2010/11- 2013/14, from participating students (n = 20 to 58) and clinician supervisors (n = 10-12), using a mixed-methods cross-sectional design. Quantitative evaluation captured information on uptake, dropout, resource use, attitudes and experience, using standardized (the Placement Evaluation Questionnaire; the Scale To Assess the Therapeutic Relationship - Clinical version and the University of Toronto Placement Supervisor Evaluation) and bespoke questionnaires and audit data. Qualitative evaluation comprised two focus groups (5 clinicians, 5 students), to investigate attitudes, experience, perceived benefits, disadvantages and desired future developments. Data were analysed using framework analysis to identify a priori and emergent themes. High uptake (around 70 placements per annum), low dropout (2-3 students per annum; 5 %) and positive focus group comments suggested placements successfully provided added value and catered sufficiently to student demand. Students' responses confirmed that placements met expectations and the perception of benefit remained after completion with 70 % (n = 14) reporting an overall positive experience, 75 % (n = 15) reporting a pleasant learning experience, 60 % (n = 12) feeling that their clinical skills were enhanced and 85 % (n = 17) believing that it would benefit other students. Placements contributed the equivalent of seven full time unskilled posts per annum to local health care services. While qualitative data revealed perceived 'mutual benefit' for both students and clinicians, this was qualified by the inherent limitations of students' time and expertise. Areas for development included fostering learning around professionalism and students' confidence on placement. The addition of healthcare placements to academic postgraduate taught courses can improve their attractiveness to applicants, benefit healthcare services and enhance students' perception of their learning experiences. Well-positioned and supported placement learning opportunities could become a key differentiator for academic courses, over potential competitors. However, the actual implications for student employability and achievement remain to be established.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Master 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,361,255
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,262
of 3,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,331
of 297,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#63
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 297,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 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.