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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Gender differences in predictors of colorectal cancer screening uptake: a national cross sectional study based on the health belief model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-677 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Reuben K Wong, Mee Lian Wong, Yiong Huak Chan, Zhu Feng, Chun Tao Wai, Khay Guan Yeoh |
| Abstract |
Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is rapidly rising in Asia, but screening uptake remains poor. Although studies have reported gender differences in screening rates, there have been few studies assessing gender specific perceptions and barriers towards CRC screening, based on behavioral frameworks. We applied the Health Belief Model to identify gender-specific predictors of CRC screening in an Asian population. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 133 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 15% |
| Researcher | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 16% |
| Unknown | 32 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 15% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Unknown | 42 | 31% |
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 24 July 2013.
All research outputs
#20,196,270
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,823
of 14,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,877
of 197,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#219
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 197,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.