↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Mandatory research projects during medical specialist training in Australia and New Zealand: a survey of trainees’ experiences and reports
Published in
Medical Journal of Australia, February 2025
DOI 10.5694/mja2.52611
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To determine how many specialist trainees are required to conduct research projects, how they conduct these studies, and their views on the value of these activities; to assess the design and reporting quality of their research reports. Online, anonymous survey. Current and recent trainees (past five years) at Australian and New Zealand specialist colleges, recruited through eleven colleges and snowballing; survey was available 31 March - 31 December 2021. Whether trainees were required to conduct research as part of specialty training; how they conducted their projects; the skills mix of the project team and access to relevant expertise and supervision; trainee views on mandatory research during specialty training; research engagement after training. Respondents were invited to submit project reports for reporting and methodological quality evaluation. A total of 371 people commenced the survey; 361 respondents provided answers about mandatory research projects during specialist training, including 311 (86%) who had been required to complete projects. Seventy-six of 177 people who had completed projects (43%) provided information about 92 projects and submitted 34 project reports for evaluation. Thirty-eight projects (41%) investigated questions developed by the trainees alone; in 48 cases (52%) trainees had planned their projects with little outside input; of the 69 study protocols developed (75% of projects), 60 were developed by the trainees. The median proportion of time devoted to the research project exceeded 50% for trainees in ten of twelve colleges. Respondents typically worked in non-collaborative teams, restricted to members of their own specialty, and additional expertise was limited to statisticians, allied health professionals, and nurses. Eighty-seven of 174 participants who had completed projects (50%) felt that doing so was very or moderately important for their clinical careers; 36 of 67 respondents (54%) supported the requirement for scholarly projects during specialty training; 33 of 61 respondents (54%) had participated in research after completing training, and 44 (72%) had considered doing so. Twenty-five of 34 available reports had been published; in 27 assessable reports, methods and results reporting was generally poor, and the risk of bias moderate to high in all but three. Participants criticised using their own time for projects and their potentially low quality results. For trainees who undertake specialty training, the time commitment and poor quality research associated with mandatory research projects were frequently concerns. Medical colleges should focus on research training tailored to individual career aspirations and training needs.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Arts and Humanities 1 17%
Unspecified 1 17%
Computer Science 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 July 2025.
All research outputs
#4,023,828
of 31,758,295 outputs
Outputs from Medical Journal of Australia
#1,858
of 7,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,897
of 346,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Journal of Australia
#20
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,758,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 346,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 57% of its contemporaries.