↓ Skip to main content

Emergency Birth Hybrid Simulation with Standardized Patients in Midwifery Education: Implementation and Evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
160 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
Emergency Birth Hybrid Simulation with Standardized Patients in Midwifery Education: Implementation and Evaluation
Published in
Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1111/jmwh.12276
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Lindsay Miller, Melissa D Avery, Karin Larson, Anne Woll, Alison VonAchen, Angela Mortenson

Abstract

Structured simulations have become a critical part of health professions education at every level, particularly for high-risk, low-incidence scenarios. This article describes the implementation and evaluation of a hybrid simulation of emergency birth situations in a graduate midwifery program. In the fall of 2011 and spring of 2012, nurse-midwifery students twice participated in 2 simulated emergencies-shoulder dystocia and postpartum hemorrhage-using hybrid simulation (a standardized patient paired with a birth task trainer). Students found the simulations to be realistic. The use of best practices (ie, repetitive practice, team learning, small group debriefing, and large group debriefing) enhanced the quality of the simulation experience and the learners' reflection about their professional skills, strengths, weaknesses, and confidence in managing these 2 obstetric emergencies. This article is part of a special series of articles that address midwifery innovations in clinical practice, education, interprofessional collaboration, health policy, and global health.

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 5 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 160 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 160 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 50 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 51 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 16%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Unspecified 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 56 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 June 2015.
All research outputs
#8,614,677
of 27,262,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health
#461
of 1,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,218
of 281,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,262,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 281,734 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 66% of its contemporaries.