↓ Skip to main content

Is it them or is it us? Unravelling ethnic disparities in undergraduate clinical performance

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Is it them or is it us? Unravelling ethnic disparities in undergraduate clinical performance
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0959-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen M. Stegers-Jager

Abstract

Given our increasingly diverse societies, there is an urgent need for research into the causes of persistent ethnic disparities in undergraduate clinical performance. It is argued that causes for underperformance can be identified from two perspectives, namely that of the students ('them') and that of the academic environment ('us'). Taking the 'us' perspective, Yeates et al. conducted a detailed experimental study aimed at understanding the processes underlying judgment and decision-making in clinical assessments. Contrary to their expectations, their study indicates that, despite the presence of active stereotypes, examiner bias does not explain ethnic minority students' underperformance. Naturally, future studies are required to confirm their findings. It is suggested that these studies should take into account various rater and situational factors (e.g. rater experience, increased cognitive load) that may influence examiners' reliance on stereotypes. However, future work should also focus on other potential impeding factors from both perspectives, including differences in communication styles. Knowing what leads to the ethnic disparities in performance is a prerequisite for designing interventions aimed at ensuring a level playing field for a diverse student population.Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0943-0.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 38%
Unspecified 4 15%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 December 2017.
All research outputs
#12,741,295
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,686
of 3,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,262
of 327,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#35
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 327,865 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.