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 |
The use of a modified Delphi approach to engage stakeholders in zoonotic disease research priority setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-182 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kate Sawford, Navneet K Dhand, Jenny-Ann LML Toribio, Melanie R Taylor |
| Abstract |
After the 2011 cluster of Hendra virus cases in horses in Australia, public health targeted education initiatives at people in the equine industry to reduce human exposure to potentially infected horses. 'Horse owners and Hendra Virus: A Longitudinal cohort study To Evaluate Risk' aims to enhance public health measures through improved understanding of Hendra virus risk perception and risk mitigation strategies among horse owners and horse care providers. This paper describes the stakeholder consultation that was undertaken to ensure the cohort study outcomes were relevant to diverse groups who play a role in Hendra virus policy development and implementation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 17% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 11 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 24% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |
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 04 March 2014.
All research outputs
#15,295,786
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,302
of 14,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,019
of 224,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#219
of 273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 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 14,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 224,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 273 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.