↓ Skip to main content

Introducing global health into the undergraduate medical school curriculum using an e-learning program: a mixed method pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2015
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 (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Introducing global health into the undergraduate medical school curriculum using an e-learning program: a mixed method pilot study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0421-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas Gruner, Kevin Pottie, Douglas Archibald, Jill Allison, Vicki Sabourin, Imane Belcaid, Anne McCarthy, Mahli Brindamour, Lana Augustincic Polec, Pauline Duke

Abstract

Physicians need global health competencies to provide effective care to culturally and linguistically diverse patients. Medical schools are seeking innovative approaches to support global health learning. This pilot study evaluated e-learning versus peer-reviewed articles to improve conceptual knowledge of global health. A mixed methods study using a randomized-controlled trial (RCT) and qualitative inquiry consisting of four post-intervention focus groups. Outcomes included pre/post knowledge quiz and self-assessment measures based on validated tools from a Global Health CanMEDS Competency Model. RCT results were analyzed using SPSS-21 and focus group transcripts coded using NVivo-9 and recoded using thematic analysis. One hundred and sixty-one pre-clerkship medical students from three Canadian medical schools participated in 2012-2013: 59 completed all elements of the RCT, 24 participated in the focus groups. Overall, comparing pre to post results, both groups showed a significant increase in the mean knowledge (quiz) scores and for 5/7 self-assessed competencies (p < 0.05). These quantitative data were triangulated with the focus groups findings that revealed knowledge acquisition with both approaches. There was no statistically significant difference between the two approaches. Participants highlighted their preference for e-learning to introduce new global health knowledge and as a repository of resources. They also mentioned personal interest in global health, online convenience and integration into the curriculum as incentives to complete the e-learning. Beta version e-learning barriers included content overload and technical difficulties. Both the e-learning and the peer reviewed PDF articles improved global health conceptual knowledge. Many students however, preferred e-learning given its interactive, multi-media approach, access to links and reference materials and its capacity to engage and re-engage over long periods of time.

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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 23%
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Unspecified 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Researcher 9 12%
Other 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 33%
Psychology 14 19%
Unspecified 10 13%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Computer Science 5 7%
Other 15 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,798,404
of 11,344,026 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#324
of 1,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,394
of 236,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#12
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,344,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 236,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.