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 |
Food products qualifying for and carrying front-of-pack symbols: a cross-sectional study examining a manufacturer led and a non-profit organization led program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-846 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Teri E Emrich, Joanna E Cohen, Wendy Y Lou, Mary R L’Abbé |
| Abstract |
Concern has been raised that the coexistence of multiple front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition rating systems in a marketplace may mislead consumers into believing that a specific food with a FOP is 'healthier' than foods without the symbol. Eleven summary indicator FOP systems are in use in Canada, including one non-profit developed system, the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check™, and ten manufacturer-developed systems, like Kraft's Sensible Solutions™. This study evaluated FOP's potential to mislead consumers by comparing the number of products qualifying to carry a given FOP symbol to the number of products that actually carry the symbol. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 25% |
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,929,526
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,291
of 14,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,150
of 197,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#159
of 297 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,799 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 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 197,514 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 297 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.