↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

The Relationship Between Facilitators’ Questions and the Level of Reflection in Postsimulation Debriefing

Overview of attention for article published in Simulation in Healthcare, June 2013
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
Summary Twitter Facebook Dimensions citations
Title
The Relationship Between Facilitators’ Questions and the Level of Reflection in Postsimulation Debriefing
Published in
Simulation in Healthcare, June 2013
DOI 10.1097/sih.0b013e31827cbb5c
Pubmed ID
23343839
Authors

Sissel Eikeland Husebø, Peter Dieckmann, Hans Rystedt, Eldar Søreide, Febe Friberg

Abstract

Simulation-based education is a learner-active method that may enhance teamwork skills such as leadership and communication. The importance of postsimulation debriefing to promote reflection is well accepted, but many questions concerning whether and how faculty promote reflection remain largely unanswered in the research literature. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the depth of reflection expressed in questions by facilitators and responses from nursing students during postsimulation debriefings.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 180 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 9%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 56 31%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 22%
Social Sciences 16 9%
Unspecified 7 4%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 36 20%

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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,815,526
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Simulation in Healthcare
#147
of 1,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,135
of 195,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Simulation in Healthcare
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,078 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 195,659 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.