↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of the global network of field epidemiology and laboratory training programmes: a resource for improving public health capacity and increasing the number of public health professionals…

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
An evaluation of the global network of field epidemiology and laboratory training programmes: a resource for improving public health capacity and increasing the number of public health professionals worldwide
Published in
Human Resources for Health, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1478-4491-11-45
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renee E Subramanian, Dionisio G Herrera, Paul M Kelly

Abstract

Given that many infectious diseases spread rapidly, across borders and species, there is a growing worldwide need to increase the number of public health professionals skilled in controlling infectious epidemics. Needed also are more public health professionals skilled in non-communicable disease surveillance and interventions. As a result, we surveyed all 57 field epidemiology training programmes (FETPs) that are members of the Training Program in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network (TEPHINET), to evaluate the progress of the FETPs, the only global applied epidemiology network, toward increasing public health capacity globally.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Thailand 1 1%
Unknown 86 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Other 8 9%
Professor 6 7%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 24 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 28%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 27 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 February 2024.
All research outputs
#5,339,368
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#614
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,824
of 213,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 213,829 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.