↓ Skip to main content

An analysis of potential barriers and enablers to regulating the television marketing of unhealthy foods to children at the state government level in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
An analysis of potential barriers and enablers to regulating the television marketing of unhealthy foods to children at the state government level in Australia
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1123
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra Chung, Jane Shill, Boyd Swinburn, Helen Mavoa, Mark Lawrence, Bebe Loff, Bradley Crammond, Gary Sacks, Steven Allender, Anna Peeters

Abstract

In Australia there have been many calls for government action to halt the effects of unhealthy food marketing on children's health, yet implementation has not occurred. The attitudes of those involved in the policy-making process towards regulatory intervention governing unhealthy food marketing are not well understood. The objective of this research was to understand the perceptions of senior representatives from Australian state and territory governments, statutory authorities and non-government organisations regarding the feasibility of state-level government regulation of television marketing of unhealthy food to children in Australia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 28%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 5 7%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Social Sciences 13 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Psychology 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 16 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 29 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,243,706
of 17,359,532 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,579
of 11,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,664
of 264,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#155
of 1,053 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,359,532 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 264,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,053 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.