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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Geographically linking population and facility surveys: methodological considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Population Health Metrics, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-7954-11-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martha Priedeman Skiles, Clara R Burgert, Siân L Curtis, John Spencer |
| Abstract |
The relationship between health services and population outcomes is an important area of public health research that requires bringing together data on outcomes and the relevant service environment. Linking independent, existing datasets geographically is potentially an efficient approach; however, it raises a number of methodological issues which have not been extensively explored. This sensitivity analysis explores the potential misclassification error introduced when a sample rather than a census of health facilities is used and when household survey clusters are geographically displaced for confidentiality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 80% |
| Panama | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
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 01 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,962,742
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#113
of 392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,497
of 197,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 197,296 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.