| Title |
Enhancing a Cancer Prevention and Control Curriculum Through Interactive Group Discussions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-012-0376-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. P. Forsythe, S. M. Gadalla, J. G. Hamilton, B. M. Heckman-Stoddard, E. E. Kent, G. Y. Lai, S. W. Lin, P. Luhn, J. M. Faupel-Badger |
| Abstract |
The Principles and Practice of Cancer Prevention and Control course (Principles course) is offered annually by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program. This 4-week postgraduate course covers the spectrum of cancer prevention and control research (e.g., epidemiology, laboratory, clinical, social, and behavioral sciences) and is open to attendees from medical, academic, government, and related institutions across the world. In this report, we describe a new addition to the Principles course syllabus, which was exclusively a lecture-based format for over 20 years. In 2011, cancer prevention fellows and staff designed and implemented small group discussion sessions as part of the curriculum. The goals of these sessions were to foster an interactive environment, discuss concepts presented during the Principles course, exchange ideas, and enhance networking among the course participants and provide a teaching and leadership opportunity to current cancer prevention fellows. Overall, both the participants and facilitators who returned the evaluation forms (n=61/87 and 8/10, respectively) reported a high satisfaction with the experience for providing both an opportunity to explore course concepts in a greater detail and to network with colleagues. Participants (93%) and facilitators (100%) stated that they would like to see this component remain a part of the Principles course curriculum, and both groups provided recommendations for the 2012 program. The design, implementation, and evaluation of this initial discussion group component of the Principles course are described herein. The findings in this report will not only inform future discussion group sessions in the Principles course but may also be useful to others planning to incorporate group learning into large primarily lecture-based courses. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 4 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 37% |
| Psychology | 3 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
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 06 February 2013.
All research outputs
#14,146,599
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#502
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,553
of 165,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 165,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 54% of its contemporaries.