↓ Skip to main content

South African podiatry students’ perceptions of feedback given as part of clinical training

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
South African podiatry students’ perceptions of feedback given as part of clinical training
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13047-018-0279-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simiso Ntuli, Noleen Nomthi September, Nozipho Sithole

Abstract

As part of their clinical training podiatry students spend time in clinical settings treating patients under the supervision of qualified podiatrists. The role and purpose of feedback during such clinical training is to improve students' knowledge, skills and behaviour. Feedback is an integral part of the learning process that should enhance students' clinical learning experiences. However, there is no data on podiatry students' satisfaction or lack thereof about feedback provided during clinical training. The aim of this study was to determine the perceptions of podiatry students on feedback given or received during clinical training. Cross-sectional survey design study in which a four-section self-constructed questionnaire was used to collect data from podiatry students in their 2nd to 4th -year of study. Simple descriptive statistics were used to analyse quantitative responses with free text comments yielding qualitative data, which has been used to give more insight into the quantitative findings. Analyses showed that 8% of students were satisfied, 52% were sometimes satisfied and 37% were not satisfied with the feedback. The majority (86%) of students indicated they would prefer to receive feedback in private. Seventy-three percent of students received positive (reinforcing) and negative (corrective) feedback at the same time. Students agree that feedback is an essential component of the clinical learning process and appreciate constructive regular feedback whether negative or positive in nature. Additionally, students understand that feedback regardless of its type has the potential to identify areas of development, reinforce good practice and motivate them to work toward their learning outcome expectations. However, there is a need to consider issues such as setting and timing when giving feedback.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 2 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Engineering 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%

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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,123,986
of 13,183,063 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#380
of 532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,800
of 268,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,183,063 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 268,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them