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 |
A conceptual framework of game-informed principles for health professions education
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Simulation, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41077-016-0030-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel H. Ellaway |
| Abstract |
Games have been used for training purposes for many years, but their use remains somewhat underdeveloped and under-theorized in health professional education. This paper considers the basis for using serious games (games that have an explicit educational purpose) in health professional education in terms of their underlying concepts and design principles. These principles can be understood as a series of game facets: competition and conflict, chance and luck, experience and performance, simulation and make-believe, tactics and strategies, media, symbols and actions, and complexity and difficulty. Games are distinct and bound in ways that other health professional education activities are not. The differences between games and simulation can be understood in terms of the interconnected concepts of isomorphism (convergence with real-world practice) and anisomorphism (divergence from real-world practice). Gaming facets can extend the instructional design repertoire in health professional education. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 | 6 | 23% |
| Australia | 5 | 19% |
| Saudi Arabia | 4 | 15% |
| Canada | 3 | 12% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 23% |
| Scientists | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 33 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 8% |
| Design | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 35 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,735,496
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#85
of 245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,694
of 421,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 421,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.