↓ Skip to main content

Predicting medical students who will have difficulty during their clinical training

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Predicting medical students who will have difficulty during their clinical training
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0879-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. L. Jardine, J. M. McKenzie, T. J. Wilkinson

Abstract

We aimed to classify the difficulties students had passing their clinical attachments, and explore factors which might predict these problems. We analysed data from regular student progress meetings 2008-2012. Problem categories were: medical knowledge, professional behaviour and clinical skills. For each category we then undertook a predictive risk analysis. Out of 561 students, 203 were found to have one or more problem category and so were defined as having difficulties. Prevalences of the categories were: clinical skills (67%), knowledge (59%) and professional behaviour (29%). A higher risk for all categories was associated with: male gender, international entry and failure in the first half of the course, but not with any of the minority ethnic groups. Professional and clinical skills problems were associated with lower marks in the Undergraduate Medical Admissions Test paper 2. Clinical skills problems were less likely in graduate students. In our students, difficulty with clinical skills was just as prevalent as medical knowledge deficit. International entry students were at highest risk for clinical skills problems probably because they were not selected by our usual criteria and had shorter time to become acculturated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 1 1%
Unknown 71 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Lecturer 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 19 26%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 39%
Social Sciences 10 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 19 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,536,850
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#172
of 3,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,989
of 323,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#6
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 323,936 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 90% of its contemporaries.