↓ Skip to main content

Co-debriefing for Simulation-based Education

Overview of attention for article published in Simulation in Healthcare, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 918)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
52 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Co-debriefing for Simulation-based Education
Published in
Simulation in Healthcare, April 2015
DOI 10.1097/sih.0000000000000077
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Cheng, Janice Palaganas, Walter Eppich, Jenny Rudolph, Traci Robinson, Vincent Grant

Abstract

As part of simulation-based education, postevent debriefing provides an opportunity for learners to critically reflect on the simulated experience, with the goal of identifying areas in need of reinforcement and correcting areas in need of improvement. The art of debriefing is made more challenging when 2 or more educators must facilitate a debriefing together (ie, co-debriefing) in an organized and coordinated fashion that ultimately enhances learning. As the momentum for incorporating simulation-based health care education continues to grow, the need for faculty development in the area of co-debriefing has become essential. In this article, we provide a practical toolbox for co-facilitators by discussing the advantages of co-debriefing, describing some of the challenges associated with co-debriefing, and offering practical approaches and strategies to overcome the most common challenges associated with co-debriefing in the context of simulation-based health care education.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 132 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 16%
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Other 39 29%
Unknown 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 21%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 27 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 16 July 2020.
All research outputs
#606,012
of 17,494,559 outputs
Outputs from Simulation in Healthcare
#13
of 918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,751
of 221,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Simulation in Healthcare
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,494,559 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 918 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 221,741 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 90% of its contemporaries.