↓ Skip to main content

One site fits all? A student ward as a learning practice for interprofessional development

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Interprofessional Care, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
One site fits all? A student ward as a learning practice for interprofessional development
Published in
Journal of Interprofessional Care, June 2013
DOI 10.3109/13561820.2013.807224
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annika Lindh Falk, Håkan Hult, Mats Hammar, Nick Hopwood, Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren

Abstract

Interprofessional training wards (IPTWs), aiming to enhance interprofessional collaboration, have been implemented in medical education and evaluated over the last decade. The Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University has, in collaboration with the local health provider, arranged such training wards since 1996, involving students from the medical, nursing, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy programs. Working together across professional boundaries is seen as a necessity in the future to achieve sustainable and safe healthcare. Therefore, educators need to arrange learning contexts which enhance students' interprofessional learning. This article shows aspects of how the arrangement of an IPTW can influence the students' collaboration and learning. Data from open-ended questions from a questionnaire survey, during autumn term 2010 and spring term 2011 at an IPTW, was analyzed qualitatively using a theoretical framework of practice theory. The theoretical lens gave a picture of how architectures of the IPTW create a clash between the "expected" professional responsibilities and the "unexpected" responsibilities of caring work. Also revealed was how the proximity between students opens up contexts for negotiations and boundary work. The value of using a theoretical framework of professional learning in practice within the frames of healthcare education is discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 101 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 28 27%
Unknown 21 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 22%
Social Sciences 14 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 28 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,175,799
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Interprofessional Care
#801
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,707
of 196,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Interprofessional Care
#20
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 196,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.