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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An evaluation of UK foundation trainee doctors’ learning behaviours in a technology-enhanced learning environment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-016-0651-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannah L. Brooks, Sarah K. Pontefract, James Hodson, Nicholas Blackwell, Elizabeth Hughes, John F. Marriott, Jamie J. Coleman |
| Abstract |
Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) can be used to educate Foundation Programme trainee (F1 and F2) doctors. Despite the advantages of TEL, learning behaviours may be exhibited that are not desired by system developers or educators. The aim of this evaluation was to investigate how learner behaviours (e.g. time spent on task) were affected by temporal (e.g. time of year), module (e.g. word count), and individual (e.g. knowledge) factors for 16 mandatory TEL modules related to prescribing and therapeutics. Data were extracted from the SCRIPT e-Learning platform for first year Foundation trainee (F1) doctors in the Health Education England's West Midland region from 1(st) August 2013 to 5(th) August 2014. Generalised Estimating Equation models were used to examine the relationship between time taken to complete modules, date modules were completed, pre- and post-test scores, and module factors. Over the time period examined, 688 F1 doctors interacted with the 16 compulsory modules 10,255 times. The geometric mean time taken to complete a module was 28.9 min (95 % Confidence Interval: 28.4-29.5) and 1,075 (10.5 %) modules were completed in less than 10 min. In February and June (prior to F1 progression reviews) peaks occurred in the number of modules completed and troughs in the time taken. Most modules were completed, and the greatest amount of time was spent on the learning on a Sunday. More time was taken by those doctors with greater pre-test scores and those with larger improvements in test scores. Foundation trainees are exhibiting unintended learning behaviours in this TEL environment, which may be attributed to several factors. These findings can help guide future developments of this TEL programme and the integration of other TEL programmes into curricula by raising awareness of potential behavioural issues that may arise. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 60% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 40% |
| Scientists | 3 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 28% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,534,789
of 25,388,837 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#616
of 3,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,238
of 312,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#18
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,837 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 312,205 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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 74% of its contemporaries.