↓ Skip to main content

Investigating novice doctors’ reflections in debriefings after simulation scenarios

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Teacher, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Investigating novice doctors’ reflections in debriefings after simulation scenarios
Published in
Medical Teacher, September 2014
DOI 10.3109/0142159x.2014.956054
Pubmed ID
Authors

Per Kihlgren, Lene Spanager, Peter Dieckmann

Abstract

Abstract Background: Debriefing is pivotal to the simulation learning process, and the reflection that it aims to foster is fundamental in experiential learning. Despite its importance, essential aspects of debriefing remain unclear. Study objective: To investigate reflection in debriefings by assessing participants' reflection levels in discussions of leader/follower-ship or role distribution and compare occurrences of high reflection with those of lower reflection. Methods: The data consisted of videos from 38 debriefings with 10 debriefers from the Danish Institute of Medical Simulation. An adapted framework of reflection levels was used for the analysis. A comparison was made between debriefers' utterances across occurrences of higher and lower reflection. Results: Participants reached only lower reflection levels. Of five reflection levels, the second was reached the most frequently and the third was the highest reached. No salient differences were found in debriefers' utterances across occurrences of higher and lower reflection. Conclusion: Participants' reflection levels were low in this cohort of novice doctors training leadership skills in acute situations. However, the desired reflection should be appropriated to the given context. The rating of reflection levels is a promising approach to analyze reflection in conversation in experience-based learning situations.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 36 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Psychology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 37 31%
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 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,412,618
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Medical Teacher
#1,432
of 2,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,843
of 238,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Teacher
#43
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 238,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.