↓ Skip to main content

Impact of smokeless tobacco packaging on perceptions and beliefs among youth, young adults, and adults in the U.S: findings from an internet-based cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
16 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Impact of smokeless tobacco packaging on perceptions and beliefs among youth, young adults, and adults in the U.S: findings from an internet-based cross-sectional survey
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-7517-11-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah E Adkison, Maansi Bansal-Travers, Danielle M Smith, Richard J O’Connor, Andrew J Hyland

Abstract

Research demonstrates that tobacco packaging elements (including health warning labels, descriptive characteristics, and corporate branding) are associated with knowledge of health risks and product appeal with cigarettes. Yet, little research has assessed this with smokeless tobacco (SLT) packaging. This study evaluates the association between three SLT packaging elements with knowledge of health risks and perceptions of novelty and appeal. Additionally, we assess how effects of these messages may differ across age groups, including youth (14-17 years), young adults (18-25 years), and older adults (26-65 years).

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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 114 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 22%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 6 5%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 23 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 16%
Psychology 18 16%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 16 September 2019.
All research outputs
#540,062
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#86
of 920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,186
of 304,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#3
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 920 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 304,587 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 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.