| Title |
Within-Team Debriefing Versus Instructor-Led Debriefing for Simulation-Based Education
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgery, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1097/sla.0b013e31829659e4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sylvain Boet, M. Dylan Bould, Bharat Sharma, Scott Revees, Viren N. Naik, Emmanuel Triby, Teodor Grantcharov |
| Abstract |
To compare the effectiveness of an interprofessional within-team debriefing with that of an instructor-led debriefing on team performance during a simulated crisis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 States | 4 | 33% |
| Canada | 3 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 222 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
| Other | 25 | 11% |
| Researcher | 24 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 10% |
| Other | 65 | 28% |
| Unknown | 39 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 113 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 6% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Unknown | 51 | 22% |
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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,102,121
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgery
#2,564
of 9,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,300
of 206,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgery
#22
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 9,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 206,705 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 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.