↓ Skip to main content

Ethics knowledge of recent paediatric residency graduates: the role of residency ethics curricula

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ethics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Ethics knowledge of recent paediatric residency graduates: the role of residency ethics curricula
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, October 2016
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2016-103625
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer C Kesselheim, Julie Najita, Debra Morley, Elizabeth Bair, Steven Joffe

Abstract

To evaluate the relationship between recently trained paediatricians' ethics knowledge and exposure to a formal ethics or professionalism curriculum during residency. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of recently trained paediatricians which included a validated 23-item instrument called the Test of Residents' Ethics Knowledge for Pediatrics. The sample included paediatricians who completed medical school in 2006-2008, whose primary specialty was paediatrics or a paediatric subspecialty, and who completed paediatric residency training in 2010-2011. This sample was stratified based on residency programme variables: presence of a formal curriculum in ethics or professionalism, programme size and American Board of Pediatrics certifying exam passage rate. Paediatricians were randomly selected from each stratum for survey participation. Among the 370 responding paediatricians (55%), the mean knowledge score was 17.3 (SD 2.2) out of a possible 23. Presence of a formal curriculum in ethics and/or professionalism was not significantly associated with knowledge. Knowledge was lowest on items about parental requests for a child to undergo genetic testing (2 items, 44% and 85% incorrect), preserving patient confidentiality over email (55% incorrect), decision-making regarding life-sustaining technologies (61% incorrect), and decision-making principles such as assent and parental permission (2 items, 47% and 49% incorrect). This study highlights several areas in which paediatricians' knowledge may be low and that are amenable to targeted educational interventions. These findings should prompt discussion and research among ethicists and educators about how ethics and professionalism curricula can more consistently influence paediatricians' knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 13 26%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 November 2016.
All research outputs
#4,322,360
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#1,537
of 3,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,559
of 323,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#37
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 323,789 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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.