↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of methods used to teach quality improvement to undergraduate healthcare students to inform curriculum development within preregistration nurse education: a protocol for systematic…

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
An evaluation of methods used to teach quality improvement to undergraduate healthcare students to inform curriculum development within preregistration nurse education: a protocol for systematic review and narrative synthesis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-4-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorraine Armstrong, William Lauder, Ashley Shepherd

Abstract

Despite criticism, quality improvement (QI) continues to drive political and educational priorities within health care. Until recently, QI educational interventions have varied, targeting mainly postgraduates, middle management and the medical profession. However, there is now consensus within the UK, USA and beyond to integrate QI explicitly into nurse education, and faculties may require redesign of their QI curriculum to achieve this. Whilst growth in QI preregistration nurse education is emerging, little empirical evidence exists to determine such effects. Furthermore, previous healthcare studies evaluating QI educational interventions lend little in the way of support and have instead been subject to criticism. They reveal methodological weakness such as no reporting of theoretical underpinnings, insufficient intervention description, poor evaluation methods, little clinical or patient impact and lack of sustainability. This study aims therefore to identify, evaluate and synthesise teaching methods used within the undergraduate population to aid development of QI curriculum within preregistration nurse education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Unknown 118 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Researcher 10 8%
Other 28 23%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 19%
Psychology 8 7%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 26 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 14 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,576,197
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#251
of 1,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,572
of 353,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 353,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.