↓ Skip to main content

Did online publishers “get it right”? Using a naturalistic search strategy to review cognitive health promotion content on internet webpages

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Did online publishers “get it right”? Using a naturalistic search strategy to review cognitive health promotion content on internet webpages
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0515-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

P.V. Hunter, M. Delbaere, M. E. O’Connell, A. Cammer, J. X. Seaton, T. Friedrich, F. Fick

Abstract

One of the most common uses of the Internet is to search for health-related information. Although scientific evidence pertaining to cognitive health promotion has expanded rapidly in recent years, it is unclear how much of this information has been made available to Internet users. Thus, the purpose of our study was to assess the reliability and quality of information about cognitive health promotion encountered by typical Internet users. To generate a list of relevant search terms employed by Internet users, we entered seed search terms in Google Trends and recorded any terms consistently used in the prior 2 years. To further approximate the behaviour of typical Internet users, we entered each term in Google and sampled the first two relevant results. This search, completed in October 2014, resulted in a sample of 86 webpages, 48 of which had content related to cognitive health promotion. An interdisciplinary team rated the information reliability and quality of these webpages using a standardized measure. We found that information reliability and quality were moderate, on average. Just one retrieved page mentioned best practice, national recommendations, or consensus guidelines by name. Commercial content (i.e., product promotion, advertising content, or non-commercial) was associated with differences in reliability and quality, with product promoter webpages having the lowest mean reliability and quality ratings. As efforts to communicate the association between lifestyle and cognitive health continue to expand, we offer these results as a baseline assessment of the reliability and quality of cognitive health promotion on the Internet.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,465,171
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,367
of 3,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,138
of 317,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#44
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 317,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.