↓ Skip to main content

Wildlife health investigations: needs, challenges and recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
161 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
332 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
Wildlife health investigations: needs, challenges and recommendations
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-6148-9-223
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie-Pierre Ryser-Degiorgis

Abstract

In a fast changing world with growing concerns about biodiversity loss and an increasing number of animal and human diseases emerging from wildlife, the need for effective wildlife health investigations including both surveillance and research is now widely recognized. However, procedures applicable to and knowledge acquired from studies related to domestic animal and human health can be on partly extrapolated to wildlife. This article identifies requirements and challenges inherent in wildlife health investigations, reviews important definitions and novel health investigation methods, and proposes tools and strategies for effective wildlife health surveillance programs. Impediments to wildlife health investigations are largely related to zoological, behavioral and ecological characteristics of wildlife populations and to limited access to investigation materials. These concerns should not be viewed as insurmountable but it is imperative that they are considered in study design, data analysis and result interpretation. It is particularly crucial to remember that health surveillance does not begin in the laboratory but in the fields. In this context, participatory approaches and mutual respect are essential. Furthermore, interdisciplinarity and open minds are necessary because a wide range of tools and knowledge from different fields need to be integrated in wildlife health surveillance and research. The identification of factors contributing to disease emergence requires the comparison of health and ecological data over time and among geographical regions. Finally, there is a need for the development and validation of diagnostic tests for wildlife species and for data on free-ranging population densities. Training of health professionals in wildlife diseases should also be improved. Overall, the article particularly emphasizes five needs of wildlife health investigations: communication and collaboration; use of synergies and triangulation approaches; investments for the long term; systematic collection of metadata; and harmonization of definitions and methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 332 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 328 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 17%
Researcher 46 14%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 6%
Other 52 16%
Unknown 61 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 80 24%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 76 23%
Environmental Science 37 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 5%
Other 33 10%
Unknown 74 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 September 2014.
All research outputs
#14,915,476
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#947
of 3,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,849
of 227,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#15
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,298 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 227,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.