↓ Skip to main content

Undesirable features of the medical learning environment: a narrative review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
Title
Undesirable features of the medical learning environment: a narrative review of the literature
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10459-012-9389-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jochanan Benbassat

Abstract

The objective of this narrative review of the literature is to draw attention to four undesirable features of the medical learning environment (MLE). First, students' fears of personal inadequacy and making errors are enhanced rather than alleviated by the hidden curriculum of the clinical teaching setting; second, the MLE projects a denial of uncertainty, although to a lesser degree than in the past; third, many students feel publicly belittled and subject to other forms of abuse; and fourth, the MLE fails in overcoming students' prejudice against mental illness and reluctance to seek help when emotionally distressed. The variability of students' appreciation of the MLE across medical schools, as well as across clinical departments within medical schools, suggests that the unwanted aspects of the MLE are modifiable. Indeed, there have been calls to promote a "nurturing" MLE, in which medical students are treated as junior colleagues. It stands to reason that faculty cannot humiliate medical students and still expect them to respect patients, just as it is impossible to ignore students' distress, and still teach them to empathize with patients. Hopefully, an egalitarian attitude to students will make them also realize that they are not alone in their fears, and that their instructors share their doubts. Therefore, a major challenge of contemporary medical education is to advance a clinical MLE, where errors and uncertainties are acknowledged rather than denied, and trainees are trusted and supported, rather than judged and, occasionally, derided.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 199 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 12%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 10%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Other 17 8%
Other 56 27%
Unknown 43 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 42%
Psychology 22 11%
Social Sciences 18 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 48 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,710,293
of 24,920,664 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#312
of 929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,288
of 169,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,920,664 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 169,294 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 73% of its contemporaries.
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 63% of its contemporaries.