↓ Skip to main content

Non-participation in chlamydia screening in the Netherlands: determinants associated with young people’s intention to participate in chlamydia screening

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Non-participation in chlamydia screening in the Netherlands: determinants associated with young people’s intention to participate in chlamydia screening
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1091
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gill A ten Hoor, Robert AC Ruiter, Jan EAM van Bergen, Christian JPA Hoebe, Katrijn Houben, Gerjo Kok

Abstract

In The Netherlands, a national chlamydia screening program started in 2008, but the participation was low and the screening was not cost-effective. This study aimed to explore unconscious and conscious associations with chlamydia screening (16-29 year-olds). In addition, we examined whether information presented in chlamydia screening invitation letters had an effect on the evaluation of these determinants compared to a no-letter group.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Librarian 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Psychology 7 14%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 11 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 December 2013.
All research outputs
#13,880,244
of 21,356,145 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,215
of 13,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,812
of 303,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#833
of 1,081 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,356,145 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 303,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,081 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.