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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Is nutritional labeling associated with individual health? The effects of labeling-based awareness on dyslipidemia risk in a South Korean population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12937-016-0200-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jong Yeob Kim, Ki Hong Kweon, Min Jae Kim, Eun-Cheol Park, Suk-Yong Jang, Woorim Kim, Kyu-Tae Han |
| Abstract |
In 1995, the South Korean government made nutrition labeling compulsory, which has positively impacted patients with certain chronic diseases, such as dyslipidemia. We investigated the association between nutrition labeling-based awareness and the risk of dyslipidemia among individuals not yet diagnosed. Our study used data from the fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys administered during 2010-2014 (n = 17,687). We performed multiple or logistic regression analysis to examine the association between nutritional analysis and various outcome variables. Approximately 70 % of the respondents (n = 11,513) were familiar with nutrition labeling, of which 20 % (n = 3172) decided what food to buy based on that information. This awareness yielded mostly positive results on outcome indicators, such as triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. In general, individuals who used nutritional labels to make decisions regarding food purchases had a lower risk of dyslipidemia than individuals who did not (OR: 0.806, 95 % CI: 0.709-0.917). Utilizing nutrition labels for making food choices correlated with a lower risk of dyslipidemia in certain subgroups. Based on our findings, we recommend that health policymakers and medical professionals consider promoting nutrition labeling as an alternative method for managing certain chronic diseases in South Korean patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 17% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,823,319
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#602
of 1,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,874
of 323,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 1,447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 323,008 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.