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 |
An evaluation of the discriminant and predictive validity of relative social disadvantage as screening criteria for priority access to public general dental care, in Australia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-14-106 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kelly Jones |
| Abstract |
Most public dental care services provide preventive, general dental care on a chronological, first come-first served basis. There is concern about lack of transparency, equity and timeliness in access to public dental services across Australia. Using social determinants as screening criteria is a novel approach to triage in dental care and is relatively untested in the literature. The research evaluated the discriminant and predictive validity of relative social disadvantage in prioritising access to public general dental care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 18% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 23 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,818,602
of 24,135,931 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#639
of 8,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,531
of 225,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#14
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,135,931 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,123 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 225,729 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 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.