You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Preparing dental students for careers as independent dental professionals: clinical audit and community-based clinical teaching
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Dental Journal, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.383 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. D. Lynch, J. Llewelyn, P. J. Ash, B. L. Chadwick |
| Abstract |
Community-based clinical teaching programmes are now an established feature of most UK dental school training programmes. Appropriately implemented, they enhance the educational achievements and competences achieved by dental students within the earlier part of their developing careers, while helping students to traverse the often-difficult transition between dental school and vocational/foundation training and independent practice. Dental school programmes have often been criticised for 'lagging behind' developments in general dental practice - an important example being the so-called 'business of dentistry', including clinical audit. As readers will be aware, clinical audit is an essential component of UK dental practice, with the aims of improving the quality of clinical care and optimising patient safety. The aim of this paper is to highlight how training in clinical audit has been successfully embedded in the community-based clinical teaching programme at Cardiff. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 26% |
| Unknown | 12 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 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 16 May 2013.
All research outputs
#14,605,487
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from British Dental Journal
#4,043
of 6,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,214
of 112,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Dental Journal
#33
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 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 6,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 112,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.