↓ Skip to main content

It Is Time to Consider Cultural Differences in Debriefing

Overview of attention for article published in Simulation in Healthcare, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 856)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
46 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
It Is Time to Consider Cultural Differences in Debriefing
Published in
Simulation in Healthcare, June 2013
DOI 10.1097/sih.0b013e318291d9ef
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hyun Soo Chung, Peter Dieckmann, Saul Barry Issenberg

Abstract

Debriefing plays a critical role in facilitated reflection of simulation after the experiential component of simulation-based learning. The concept of framing and reflective learning in a debriefing session has emanated primarily from Western cultures. However, non-Western cultures have significant characteristics that manifest themselves in teaching and learning practices substantially different from Western cultures. We need to consider how to balance standardization in debriefing with a culture-sensitive interpretation of simulation-based learning so that learners receive the maximum benefit from debriefing sessions. Our goal was to raise awareness of cultural differences and stimulate work to make progress in this regard.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Ireland 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 70 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 27 36%
Unknown 3 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 19%
Social Sciences 11 15%
Psychology 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 5 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 03 September 2019.
All research outputs
#607,775
of 15,850,637 outputs
Outputs from Simulation in Healthcare
#15
of 856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,215
of 158,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Simulation in Healthcare
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,850,637 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 856 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 158,066 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 96% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.