↓ Skip to main content

Resisting Outdated Models of Pedagogical Domination and Subordination in Health Professions Education

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
52 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Resisting Outdated Models of Pedagogical Domination and Subordination in Health Professions Education
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, September 2016
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.9.ecas3-1609
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angel Chen, Maureen Brodie

Abstract

This case highlights a dilemma for interprofessional trainees facing a traditional health professions hierarchy rather than an interprofessional collaborative practice culture within the clinical setting. In the case, the trainee must determine the best way to confront the attending physician, if at all, as well as the best way to mediate the situation with fellow health professions trainees and team members. The commentary provides guidelines for interprofessional collaborative practice as outlined by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative competencies, including determining team members' roles and responsibilities, providing clear communication, adopting clinical huddles, and embracing a sense of inquiry during times of conflict. Role modeling of interprofessional collaborative practice by faculty is crucial in training a future generation of health care professionals who can continue to improve patient outcomes and quality of care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Librarian 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 16 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 19 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,211,704
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,655
of 350,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,992,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 350,547 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.