↓ Skip to main content

Fellowship training: a qualitative study of scope and purpose across one department of medicine

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 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 (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Fellowship training: a qualitative study of scope and purpose across one department of medicine
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1062-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jolanta Karpinski, Rola Ajjawi, Katherine Moreau

Abstract

Fellowship training follows certification in a primary specialty or subspecialty and focusses on distinct and advanced clinical and/or academic skills. This phase of medical education is growing in prevalence, but has been an "invisible phase of postgraduate training" lacking standards for education and accreditation, as well as funding. We aimed to explore fellowship programs and examine the reasons to host and participate in fellowship training, seeking to inform the future development of fellowship education. During the 2013-14 academic year, we conducted interviews and focus groups to examine the current status of fellowship training from the perspectives of division heads, fellowship directors and current fellows at the Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. Descriptive statistics were used to depict the prevailing status of fellowship training. A process of data reduction, data analysis and conclusions/verifications was performed to analyse the quantitative data. We interviewed 16 division heads (94%), 15 fellowship directors (63%) and 8 fellows (21%). We identified three distinct types of fellowships. Individualized fellowships focus on the career goals of the trainee and/or the recruitment goals of the division. Clinical fellowships focus on the attainment of clinical expertise over and above the competencies of residency. Research fellowships focus on research productivity. Participants identified a variety of reasons to offer fellowships: improve academic productivity; improve clinical productivity; share/develop enhanced clinical expertise; recruit future faculty members/attain an academic position; enhance the reputation of the division/department/trainee; and enhance the scholarly environment. Fellowships serve a variety of purposes which benefit both individual trainees as well as the academic enterprise. Fellowships can be categorized within a distinct taxonomy: individualized; clinical; and research. Each type of fellowship may serve a variety of purposes, and each may need distinct support and resources. Further research is needed to catalogue the operational requirements for hosting and undertaking fellowship training, and establish recommendations for educational and administrative policy and processes in this new phase of postgraduate education.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 21%
Researcher 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 21%
Psychology 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 2 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,074,569
of 13,529,863 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#525
of 2,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,922
of 390,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#73
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,529,863 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 390,414 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 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 71% of its contemporaries.