↓ Skip to main content

Leveraging public health nurses for disaster risk communication in Fukushima City: a qualitative analysis of nurses' written records of parenting counseling and peer discussions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
Leveraging public health nurses for disaster risk communication in Fukushima City: a qualitative analysis of nurses' written records of parenting counseling and peer discussions
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-14-129
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aya Goto, Rima E Rudd, Alden Y Lai, Kazuki Yoshida, Yuu Suzuki, Donald D Halstead, Hiromi Yoshida-Komiya, Michael R Reich

Abstract

Local public health nurses (PHNs) have been recognized as the main health service providers in communities in Japan. The Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 has, however, created a major challenge for them in responding to mothers' concerns. This was in part due to difficulties in assessing, understanding and communicating health risks on low-dose radiation exposure. In order to guide the development of risk communication plans, this study sought to investigate mothers' primary concerns and possible solutions perceived by a core healthcare profession like the PHNs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Lecturer 5 4%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 17%
Social Sciences 21 17%
Engineering 4 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 41 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 January 2015.
All research outputs
#7,071,808
of 23,752,589 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,385
of 7,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,790
of 224,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#51
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,752,589 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 224,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.