↓ Skip to main content

International consensus statement on the assessment of interprofessional learning outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Teacher, December 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
International consensus statement on the assessment of interprofessional learning outcomes
Published in
Medical Teacher, December 2016
DOI 10.1080/0142159x.2017.1270441
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gary D. Rogers, Jill E. Thistlethwaite, Elizabeth S. Anderson, Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren, Ruby E. Grymonpre, Monica Moran, Dujeepa D. Samarasekera

Abstract

Regulatory frameworks around the world mandate that health and social care professional education programs graduate practitioners who have the competence and capability to practice effectively in interprofessional collaborative teams. Academic institutions are responding by offering interprofessional education (IPE); however, there is as yet no consensus regarding optimal strategies for the assessment of interprofessional learning (IPL). The Program Committee for the 17th Ottawa Conference in Perth, Australia in March, 2016, invited IPE champions to debate and discuss the current status of the assessment of IPL. A draft statement from this workshop was further discussed at the global All Together Better Health VIII conference in Oxford, UK in September, 2016. The outcomes of these deliberations and a final round of electronic consultation informed the work of a core group of international IPE leaders to develop this document. The consensus statement we present here is the result of the synthesized views of experts and global colleagues. It outlines the challenges and difficulties but endorses a set of desired learning outcome categories and methods of assessment that can be adapted to individual contexts and resources. The points of consensus focus on pre-qualification (pre-licensure) health professional students but may be transferable into post-qualification arenas.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 2 3%
Malaysia 1 1%
Saudi Arabia 1 1%
Unknown 71 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Lecturer 8 11%
Professor 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 31 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 37%
Unspecified 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Social Sciences 9 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 9%
Other 7 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#674,222
of 12,996,278 outputs
Outputs from Medical Teacher
#67
of 1,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,110
of 368,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Teacher
#2
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,996,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 368,912 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 95% of its contemporaries.