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 |
Emergency management in health: key issues and challenges in the UK
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-12-884 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew CK Lee, Wendy Phillips, Kirsty Challen, Steve Goodacre |
| Abstract |
Emergency planning in the UK has grown considerably in recent years, galvanised by the threat of terrorism. However, deficiencies in NHS emergency planning were identified and the evidence-base that underpins it is questionable. Inconsistencies in terminologies and concepts also exist. Different models of emergency management exist internationally but the optimal system is unknown. This study examines the evidence-base and evidence requirements for emergency planning in the UK health context. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 4 | 44% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 14% |
| Psychology | 8 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 33 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 05 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,358,768
of 25,248,775 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,721
of 16,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,594
of 184,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#38
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,248,775 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 184,531 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 295 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.