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 |
Weeding out the information: an ethnographic approach to exploring how young people make sense of the evidence on cannabis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Harm Reduction Journal, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1477-7517-10-34 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara M Moffat, Emily K Jenkins, Joy L Johnson |
| Abstract |
Contradictory evidence on cannabis adds to the climate of confusion regarding the health harms related to use. This is particularly true for young people as they encounter and make sense of opposing information on cannabis. Knowledge translation (KT) is in part focused on ensuring that knowledge users have access to and understand best evidence; yet, little attention has focused on the processes youth use to weigh scientific evidence. There is growing interest in how KT efforts can involve knowledge users in shaping the delivery of youth-focused public health messages. To date, the youth voice has been largely absent from the creation of public health messages on cannabis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 | 5 | 20% |
| United States | 5 | 20% |
| Canada | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 84% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 18% |
| Researcher | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 18% |
| Psychology | 17 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 19 November 2018.
All research outputs
#911,403
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#158
of 1,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,483
of 319,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 319,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.