↓ Skip to main content

Learner-Centered Debriefing for Health Care Simulation Education: Lessons for Faculty Development

Overview of attention for article published in Simulation in Healthcare, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 722)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
80 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Learner-Centered Debriefing for Health Care Simulation Education: Lessons for Faculty Development
Published in
Simulation in Healthcare, February 2016
DOI 10.1097/sih.0000000000000136
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheng, Adam, Morse, Kate J, Rudolph, Jenny, Arab, Abeer A, Runnacles, Jane, Eppich, Walter, Morse, Kate J., Arab, Abeer A., Adam Cheng, Kate J. Morse, Jenny Rudolph, Abeer A. Arab, Jane Runnacles, Walter Eppich

Abstract

Better debriefing practices may enhance the impact of simulation-based education. Emerging literature suggests that learner-centered debriefing may be effective in helping instructors identify and address learner needs while building learner's engagement and sense of responsibility for learning. This contrasts with instructor-centered approaches to debriefing, where instructors maintain unilateral control over both the process and content of the debriefing, thus limiting input and direction from learners. Although different approaches to debriefing for simulation-based education exist, the simulation literature is largely mute on the topic of learner-centered debriefing. In this article we will (1) compare and contrast learner- versus instructor-centered approaches to teaching; (2) provide a rationale for applying more learner-centered approaches to debriefing; (3) introduce a conceptual framework that highlights the key dimensions of learner- versus instructor-centered debriefing; (4) describe key variables to consider when managing the balance between learner- and instructor-centered debriefing; and (5) describe practical learner-centered strategies for various phases of debriefing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Malaysia 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 33 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 23%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Unspecified 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 31 October 2018.
All research outputs
#203,588
of 12,225,951 outputs
Outputs from Simulation in Healthcare
#5
of 722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,051
of 344,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Simulation in Healthcare
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,225,951 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 722 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 344,124 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 91% of its contemporaries.