↓ Skip to main content

A Standardized Needs Assessment Tool to Inform the Curriculum Development Process for Pediatric Resuscitation Simulation-Based Education in Resource-Limited Settings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
A Standardized Needs Assessment Tool to Inform the Curriculum Development Process for Pediatric Resuscitation Simulation-Based Education in Resource-Limited Settings
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Shilkofski, Amanda Crichlow, Julie Rice, Leslie Cope, Ye Myint Kyaw, Thazin Mon, Sarah Kiguli, Julianna Jung

Abstract

Under five mortality rates (UFMR) remain high for children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the developing world. Education for practitioners in these environments is a key factor to improve outcomes that will address United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 10 (good health and well being and reduced inequalities). In order to appropriately contextualize a curriculum using simulation, it is necessary to first conduct a needs assessment of the target learner population. The World Health Organization (WHO) has published a tool to assess capacity for emergency and surgical care in LMICs that is adaptable to this goal. The WHO Tool for Situational Analysis to Assess Emergency and Essential Surgical Care was modified to assess pediatric resuscitation capacity in clinical settings in two LMICs: Uganda and Myanmar. Modifications included assessment of self-identified learning needs, current practices, and perceived epidemiology of disease burden in each clinical setting, in addition to assessment of pediatric resuscitation capacity in regard to infrastructure, procedures, equipment, and supplies. The modified tool was administered to 94 respondents from the two settings who were target learners of a proposed simulation-based curriculum in pediatric and neonatal resuscitation. Infectious diseases (respiratory illnesses and diarrheal disease) were cited as the most common causes of pediatric deaths in both countries. Self-identified learning needs included knowledge and skill development in pediatric airway/breathing topics, as well as general resuscitation topics such as CPR and fluid resuscitation in shock. Equipment and supply availability varied substantially between settings, and critical shortages were identified in each setting. Current practices and procedures were often limited by equipment availability or infrastructural considerations. Epidemiology of disease burden reported by respondents was relatively consistent with WHO country-specific UFMR statistics in each setting. Results of the needs assessment survey were subsequently used to refine goals and objectives for the simulation curriculum and to ensure delivery of pragmatic educational content with recommendations that were contextualized for local capacity and resource availability. Effective use of the tool in two different settings increases its potential generalizability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 12%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 32 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 29%
Social Sciences 11 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 35 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,622,760
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#2,329
of 7,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,543
of 336,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#60
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 336,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.