↓ Skip to main content

Examples of applied public health through the work of the Epidemic Intelligence Service officers at CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health: 2006–2015

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health Reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Examples of applied public health through the work of the Epidemic Intelligence Service officers at CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health: 2006–2015
Published in
Public Health Reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40985-017-0051-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yulia I. Carroll, Fauzia A. Rashid, Henry Falk, Meredith M. Howley

Abstract

The Epidemic Intelligence Service officers (EISOs) at the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH)/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) respond to public health outbreaks, assist public health surveillance, and recommend public health actions. We summarize the breadth of work done by EISOs assigned to NCEH/ATSDR during 2006-2015. We used the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify articles authored by the EISOs, number and types of epidemiologic assistance field investigations (Epi-Aids), and interviewed NCEH/ATSDR programs with EISO assignees. The largest number of NCEH/ATSDR EISO publications (n = 61) and Epi-Aids (n = 110) related to toxic chemicals (23 and 37, respectively), followed by natural disasters and those caused by humans (19 and 25, respectively), extreme temperature-related illness (9), and chronic diseases (8). The investigations raised awareness, identified risk factors and public health needs, and introduced better prevention and protection measures for human health. Through field investigations and other technical assistance, NCEH/ATSDR provided leadership and staff scientists to assist in the field, as well as knowledge transfer to local, state, territorial, and international health departments.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 21%
Researcher 8 19%
Unspecified 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Unspecified 4 9%
Psychology 3 7%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 13 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,307,934
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Reviews
#186
of 237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,742
of 419,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Reviews
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 419,049 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.