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 |
Public health reasoning: much more than deduction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Public Health, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/0778-7367-71-25 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Louise Cummings |
| Abstract |
The deductive paradigm has produced notable successes in epidemiology and public health. But while deductive logic has made a substantial contribution to the public health field, it must be recognized that there are also limits to that contribution. This report examines one such limit: the need for non-deductive models in public health reasoning. The findings of a study of public health reasoning in 879 members of the public are reported. Four non-deductive strategies were chosen for their capacity to bridge gaps in one's knowledge. It emerged that subjects were adept at using these strategies in the absence of knowledge to arrive at judgements about public health problems. The implications of this finding for public health communication are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 Kingdom | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 32% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
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 30 October 2013.
All research outputs
#14,801,254
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
#558
of 1,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,882
of 213,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 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 1,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 213,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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