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 |
Guidelines and mindlines: why do clinical staff over-diagnose malaria in Tanzania? A qualitative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Malaria Journal, April 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2875-7-53 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clare IR Chandler, Caroline Jones, Gloria Boniface, Kaseem Juma, Hugh Reyburn, Christopher JM Whitty |
| Abstract |
Malaria over-diagnosis in Africa is widespread and costly both financially and in terms of morbidity and mortality from missed diagnoses. An understanding of the reasons behind malaria over-diagnosis is urgently needed to inform strategies for better targeting of antimalarials. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 393 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 8 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 2% |
| United States | 5 | 1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 362 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 100 | 25% |
| Researcher | 66 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 54 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 29 | 7% |
| Other | 66 | 17% |
| Unknown | 45 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 155 | 39% |
| Social Sciences | 58 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 44 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 57 | 15% |
| Unknown | 50 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,763,842
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#635
of 5,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,247
of 81,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 81,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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.