↓ Skip to main content

The African cancer advocacy consortium: shaping the path for advocacy in Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Agents and Cancer, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
The African cancer advocacy consortium: shaping the path for advocacy in Africa
Published in
Infectious Agents and Cancer, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-9378-8-s1-s8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Folakemi T Odedina, Kwanele Asante-Shongwe, Emmanuel J Kandusi, Richard Segal, Shannon Pressey, R Renee Reams, Virgil H Simons

Abstract

Although there is significant evidence of a cancer epidemic in Africa, there is limited awareness about cancer in most African countries. By partnering with international organizations and institutions such as the University of Florida and the Prostate Net, the African Organisation for Research and Training in Cancer (AORTIC) is committed to improving cancer advocacy in Africa. This paper presents some of the recent efforts on cancer advocacy in Africa, including the results of a SWOT analysis conducted for the cancer advocacy workshop and the guidelines developed by cancer advocates on best practices for cancer advocacy in Africa. One of the outcomes of these efforts is the African Cancer Advocates Consortium (ACAC) founded by cancer advocates in Africa to, "Make Cancer a Top Priority in Africa". While we have started the work to strengthen cancer advocacy in Africa, we still have a long way to go. Our goal of making cancer a priority in Africa can mainly be achieved by: (1) increasing the manpower for cancer advocacy through education and training; and (2) strengthening the network of cancer advocates across the continent.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ghana 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 30%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 20%
Social Sciences 3 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 2 10%

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 17 July 2013.
All research outputs
#13,754,277
of 21,347,367 outputs
Outputs from Infectious Agents and Cancer
#213
of 472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,907
of 174,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infectious Agents and Cancer
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 174,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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