| Title |
Regional coordinators: a new teaching opportunity in family medicine training
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-016-0667-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Davorina Petek, Polona Vidič Hudobivnik, Viktorija Jančar, Bojana Petek, Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš |
| Abstract |
A new project on education in family medicine training was implemented last year in Slovenia by establishing regional coordinators in the specialist training programme. They are responsible for conducting regular small-group meetings with family medicine trainees. This study wanted to explore the attitudes and opinions of regional coordinators and family medicine trainees concerning this new method. This was a qualitative study based on focus groups. The participants were regional coordinators and family medicine specialist trainees. The data were analysed based on the principles of thematic content analysis with inductive technique. The study revealed five themes which were the same for the analysis of transcripts of both regional coordinators and family medicine trainees: 1) Meetings with trainees; 2) Coordination; 3) Characteristics of regional coordinators; 4) Position of regional coordinators, and 5) Evaluation of regional coordinators. Participants of the study have many expectations for this new programme. They expect progress in trainees' clinical knowledge through experience-based group learning and with the help of the tutorship role of regional coordinators. The role of regional coordinators represents a new possibility for solving problems in the training programme in their coordinating role. In future, they have the potential to develop into an expert body that supervises the quality of training. A close follow-up is necessary to see if the position of regional coordinators is adequate and if they meet the expectations of the trainees as well as their own goals. Administrative and financial support for the programme is necessary. The project is important also in enabling the adaptation of the training programme's needs and the regional characteristics of medical care. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Slovenia | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
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 20 January 2017.
All research outputs
#13,666,436
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,696
of 3,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,824
of 306,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#40
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,510 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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 306,253 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.