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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
TeamGAINS: a tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Quality & Safety, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000917 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michaela Kolbe, Mona Weiss, Gudela Grote, Axel Knauth, Micha Dambach, Donat R Spahn, Bastian Grande |
| Abstract |
Improving patient safety by training teams to successfully manage emergencies is a major concern in healthcare. Most current trainings use simulation of emergency situations to practice and reflect on relevant clinical and behavioural skills. We developed TeamGAINS, a hybrid, structured debriefing tool for simulation-based team trainings in healthcare that integrates three different debriefing approaches: guided team self-correction, advocacy-inquiry and systemic-constructivist techniques. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Morocco | 1 | 25% |
| Colombia | 1 | 25% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 313 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 308 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 11% |
| Researcher | 31 | 10% |
| Other | 29 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 6% |
| Other | 95 | 30% |
| Unknown | 63 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 138 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 13% |
| Psychology | 22 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 15 | 5% |
| Unknown | 74 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 February 2020.
All research outputs
#6,237,583
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#1,600
of 2,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,402
of 209,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#25
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 209,899 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.