↓ Skip to main content

Common concepts in separate domains? Family physicians’ ways of understanding teaching patients and trainees, a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Common concepts in separate domains? Family physicians’ ways of understanding teaching patients and trainees, a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0397-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Terese Stenfors-Hayes, Mattias Berg, Ian Scott, Joanna Bates

Abstract

Medical education is increasingly expanding into new community teaching settings and the need for clinical teachers is rising. Many physicians taking on this new role are already skilled patient educators. The purpose of this research was to explore how family physicians conceptualize teaching patients compared to the teaching of trainees. Our aim was to understand if there is any common ground between these two roles in order to support faculty development based on already existing skills. Semi-structured interviews with twenty-five family physician preceptors were conducted in Vancouver, Canada and thematically analyzed. We identified four key areas of overlap between the two fields (being learner-centered; supporting the acquisition, application and integration of knowledge; role modeling and self-disclosure; and facilitating autonomy) and three areas of divergence (aim of teaching and setting the learning objectives; establishing rapport; and providing feedback). Finding common ground between these two teaching roles would support knowledge translation and inquiry between the domains of teaching patients and trainees. It would furthermore open up new avenues for improving training and practice for clinical teachers by better linking faculty development and continuing medical education (CME).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Psychology 4 9%
Philosophy 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 10 21%
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 12 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,936,217
of 25,138,857 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,939
of 3,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,392
of 269,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#18
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,138,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 269,000 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 50% of its contemporaries.