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 |
Expenditure and resource utilisation for cervical screening in Australia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-12-446 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jie-Bin Lew, Kirsten Howard, Dorota Gertig, Megan Smith, Mark Clements, Carolyn Nickson, Ju-Fang Shi, Suzanne Dyer, Sarah Lord, Prudence Creighton, Yoon-Jung Kang, Jeffrey Tan, Karen Canfell |
| Abstract |
The National Cervical Screening Program in Australia currently recommends that women aged 18-69 years are screened with conventional cytology every 2 years. Publicly funded HPV vaccination was introduced in 2007, and partly as a consequence, a renewal of the screening program that includes a review of screening recommendations has recently been announced. This study aimed to provide a baseline for such a review by quantifying screening program resource utilisation and costs in 2010. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 40% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 December 2012.
All research outputs
#17,673,866
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,249
of 7,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,767
of 277,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#108
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 277,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.