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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Virtual patients - what are we talking about? A framework to classify the meanings of the term in healthcare education
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-015-0296-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrzej A Kononowicz, Nabil Zary, Samuel Edelbring, Janet Corral, Inga Hege |
| Abstract |
BackgroundThe term ¿virtual patients¿ (VPs) has been used for many years in academic publications, but its meaning varies, leading to confusion. Our aim was to investigate and categorize the use of the term ¿virtual patient¿ and then classify its use in healthcare education.MethodsA literature review was conducted to determine all articles using the term ¿virtual patient¿ in the title or abstract. These articles were categorized into: Education, Clinical Procedures, Clinical Research and E-Health. All educational articles were further classified based on a framework published by Talbot et al. which was further developed using a deductive content analysis approach.Results536 articles published between 1991 and December 2013 were included in the study. From these, 330 were categorized as educational. Classifying these showed that 37% articles used VPs in the form of Interactive Patient Scenarios. VPs in form of High Fidelity Software Simulations (19%) and Virtual Standardized Patients (16%) were also frequent. Less frequent were other forms, such as VP Games.Analyzing the literature across time shows an overall trend towards the use of Interactive Patient Scenarios as the predominant form of VPs in healthcare education.ConclusionsThe main form of educational VPs in the literature are Interactive Patient Scenarios despite rapid technical advances that would support more complex applications. The adapted classification provides a valuable model for VP developers and researchers in healthcare education to more clearly communicate the type of VP they are addressing avoiding misunderstandings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 21% |
| Canada | 4 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Turkey | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Sweden | 1 | 5% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 26% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 244 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% |
| Unknown | 242 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 12% |
| Researcher | 27 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 54 | 22% |
| Unknown | 58 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 27% |
| Computer Science | 27 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 6% |
| Engineering | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 37 | 15% |
| Unknown | 67 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 15 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,667,184
of 25,362,278 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#198
of 3,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,815
of 361,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#5
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,278 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 3,972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 361,275 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 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.