↓ Skip to main content

Preparing future doctors for palliative care: views of course organisers

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care , April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Preparing future doctors for palliative care: views of course organisers
Published in
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care , April 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjspcare-2017-001319
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Walker, Jane Gibbins, Paul Paes, Stephen Barclay, Astrid Adams, Madawa Chandratilake, Faye Gishen, Philip Lodge, Bee Wee

Abstract

Effective training at medical school is essential to prepare new doctors to safely manage patients with palliative care (PC) and end of life care (EOLC) needs. The contribution of undergraduate PC course organisers is central but their collective views regarding role are unknown. To survey attitudes of PC course organisers regarding their course, organisation, the adequacy of training provided and level of personal satisfaction. An anonymised, multifactorial, web-based questionnaire was devised, tested, modified and then sent to lead PC course organisers at all UK medical schools. Data were obtained from all 30 UK medical schools. Organisers agreed/strongly agreed (=agreed) that their PC course was highly rated by students (26, 87%). 25 (83%) agreed their course 'enabled misconceptions and fears about PC, death, dying and bereavement to be addressed', 'delivered quality PC training' (23, 77%), 'fulfilled General Medical Council requirements' (19, 63%), 'prepared students well to care for patients with PC/EOLC needs' (18, 60%) and 'enabled students to visit a hospice and see the role of doctors in caring for the dying' (17, 57%). Concerns were limited capacity to accommodate students (agreed 20, 66%) and variability in teaching according to location (15, 50%). Most agreed their institution recognised PC training as important (22, 73%), they felt supported by colleagues (21, 70%) and experienced cooperation between stakeholders (20, 67%). All agreed that PC training was essential for undergraduates, while 29 (97%) supported inclusion of a hospice visit in the curriculum. 27 agreed that their role was satisfying (90%), 3 disagreed (10%). Approximately two-thirds of organisers were generally positive about their PC course, institution and role. A minority expressed concerns; these may reflect suboptimal PC training at their medical school and poor preparation of new doctors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 10%
Other 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 50%
Unspecified 4 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,575,695
of 11,346,659 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
#221
of 824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,100
of 264,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,346,659 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 824 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 264,467 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.