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 |
Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-13-843 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maren Dreier, Birgit Borutta, Gabriele Seidel, Inga Kreusel, Jürgen Töppich, Eva M Bitzer, Marie-Luise Dierks, Ulla Walter |
| Abstract |
Appropriate patient information materials may support the consumer's decision to attend or not to attend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests (fecal occult blood test and screening colonoscopy). The aim of this study was to develop a list of criteria to assess whether written health information materials on CRC screening provide balanced, unbiased, quantified, understandable, and evidence-based health information (EBHI) about CRC and CRC screening. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Librarian | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 27% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Psychology | 6 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 November 2013.
All research outputs
#18,353,475
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,803
of 14,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,750
of 197,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#272
of 297 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,808 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 197,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.