↓ Skip to main content

Why and how do general practitioners teach? An exploration of the motivations and experiences of rural Australian general practitioner supervisors

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Why and how do general practitioners teach? An exploration of the motivations and experiences of rural Australian general practitioner supervisors
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0474-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerard Ingham, Jennifer Fry, Peter O’Meara, Vianne Tourle

Abstract

In medical education, a learner-centred approach is recommended. There is also a trend towards workplace-based learning outside of the hospital setting. In Australia, this has resulted in an increased need for General Practitioner (GP) supervisors who are receptive to using adult learning principles in their teaching. Little is known about what motivates Australian GP supervisors and how they currently teach. A qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 20 rural GP supervisors who work within one Regional Training Provider region in Australia explored their reasons for being a supervisor and how they performed their role. Data was analysed using a thematic analysis approach. GP supervisors identified both personal and professional benefits in being a supervisor, as well as some benefits for their practice. Supervision fulfilled a perceived broader responsibility to the profession and community, though they felt it had little impact on rural retention of doctors. While financial issues did not provide significant motivation to teach, the increasing financial inequity compared with providing direct patient care might impact negatively on the decision to be or to remain a supervisor in the future. The principal challenge for supervisors was finding time for teaching. Despite this, there was little evidence of supervisors adopting strategies to reduce teaching load. Teaching methods were reported in the majority to be case-based with styles extending from didactic to coach/facilitator. The two-way collegiate relationship with a registrar was valued, with supervisors taking an interest in the registrars beyond their development as a clinician. Supervisors report positively on their teaching and mentoring roles. Recruitment strategies that highlight the personal and professional benefits that supervision offers are needed. Practices need assistance to adopt models of supervision and teaching that will help supervisors productively manage the increasing number of learners in their practices. Educational institutions should facilitate the development and maintenance of supportive supervision and a learning culture within teaching practices. Given the variety of teaching approaches, evaluation of in-practice teaching is recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Lecturer 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 25 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 24%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Psychology 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 30 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,295,501
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#3,142
of 3,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,746
of 284,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#57
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,323 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 284,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.