↓ Skip to main content

Randomised controlled trials and changing public health practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Randomised controlled trials and changing public health practice
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4287-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Cockcroft

Abstract

One reason for doing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that experiments can be convincing. Early epidemiological experimenters, such as Jenner and the smallpox vaccine and Snow and his famous Broad Street pump handle, already knew the answer they were demonstrating; they used the experiments as knowledge translation devices to convince others.More sophisticated modern experiments include cluster randomised controlled trials (CRCTs) for experiments in the public health setting. The knowledge translation value remains: RCTs and CRCTs can potentially stimulate changes of practice among stakeholders. Capitalising on the knowledge translation value of RCTs requires more than the standard reporting of trials. Those who are convinced by a trial and want to act, need to know how the trial relates to their own context, what contributed to success, and what might make it even more effective. Implementation research unpacks the back-story, examining how and why an intervention worked.The Camino Verde trial of community mobilisation for control of dengue reported a significant impact on entomological indices of the Aedes aegypti vector, and on serological dengue virus infection and self-reported dengue cases. This important study should lead to studies of similar interventions in other contexts, and ultimately to changes in dengue control practices. This supplement is the back-story of the trial, providing information to help researchers and planners to make use of the trial findings.Background articles include the full protocol, a systematic review of CRCTs of approaches for Aedes aegypti control, epidemiological and entomological findings from the baseline survey, and how baseline findings were used to set up the intervention. Secondary analyses of the entomological findings examine associations with the use of the larvicide temephos, and the impact of the intervention in different conditions of water supply and seasons.Other articles describe implementation and other impacts: the underlying approach; implementation in the trial's different social contexts; the different impact in women and men; the effects of using fish for vector control; the impact on household costs of personal protection and of cases of dengue illness; and ethical issues.We hope this supplement will increase the knowledge translation value of the Camino Verde trial.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Other 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 22 31%

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 05 January 2018.
All research outputs
#9,567,908
of 15,033,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,891
of 10,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,164
of 265,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,033,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 265,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.