↓ Skip to main content

Auf dem Weg zum Dr. med. – Welche Unterstützung brauchen Promovierende der Medizin? Teil 1: Bestandsaufnahme und Konzeptentwicklung

Overview of attention for article published in Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Auf dem Weg zum Dr. med. – Welche Unterstützung brauchen Promovierende der Medizin? Teil 1: Bestandsaufnahme und Konzeptentwicklung
Published in
Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.zefq.2015.12.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika Sennekamp, Michael A. Paulitsch, Marischa Broermann, Thomas Klingebiel, Ferdinand M. Gerlach

Abstract

In Germany, medical doctorates are regularly criticized for their insufficient quality. In order to improve the quality of doctorates and to support doctoral candidates, a department-wide doctoral research program was established at the Goethe University of Frankfurt am Main in 2011 taking into account the practical needs of doctoral students at the School of Medicine. The program development proceeded in several steps: in the first step (2009/2010), a pilot study with eleven doctoral candidates was carried out at the Institute of General Practice. Their ratings of the perceived relevance and their own knowledge of 15 topics of scientific work were used to identify a provisional need for support. Subsequently an interdisciplinary panel of experts established the program throughout the faculty. Since its implementation, a requirements analysis in the form of questionnaires has been continuously carried out in order to assess the doctoral students' prior knowledge and their preferences expressed. At the same time, systematic searches for support programs in other medical fields have been conducted throughout Germany on several occasions. On the basis of the pilot study, the research results and the expert panel discussions the following topics were found to be particularly relevant: principles of good scientific practice, literature search, reference management, organization and structure of a doctoral thesis, formatting of Word documents, clinical epidemiology and data management. A specific, stepwise development process was used to design a concept for the faculty of medicine that pays close attention to the knowledge and interests of doctoral candidates. The establishment of the doctoral research program in Frankfurt and the results of its evaluation are presented in a second article (Paulitsch et al., 2016).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 11%
Unknown 8 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Physics and Astronomy 1 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%

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 14 January 2016.
All research outputs
#9,991,264
of 12,482,475 outputs
Outputs from Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
#120
of 258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,326
of 349,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,482,475 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 258 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 349,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.