↓ Skip to main content

General practice training and virtual communities of practice - a review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, August 2012
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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 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.
Title
General practice training and virtual communities of practice - a review of the literature
Published in
BMC Family Practice, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2296-13-87
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Barnett, Sandra C Jones, Sue Bennett, Don Iverson, Andrew Bonney

Abstract

Good General Practice is essential for an effective health system. Good General Practice training is essential to sustain the workforce, however training for General Practice can be hampered by a number of pressures, including professional, structural and social isolation. General Practice trainees may be under more pressure than fully registered General Practitioners, and yet isolation can lead doctors to reduce hours and move away from rural practice. Virtual communities of practice (VCoPs) in business have been shown to be effective in improving knowledge sharing, thus reducing professional and structural isolation. This literature review will critically examine the current evidence relevant to virtual communities of practice in General Practice training, identify evidence-based principles that might guide their construction and suggest further avenues for research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Canada 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 159 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 20%
Student > Master 24 14%
Researcher 24 14%
Other 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 48 28%
Unknown 14 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 26%
Social Sciences 37 22%
Computer Science 13 8%
Psychology 13 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 20 12%

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 15 May 2013.
All research outputs
#2,946,500
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#390
of 1,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,191
of 129,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 129,590 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 78% 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 done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.