↓ Skip to main content

Q fever in the Netherlands: public perceptions and behavioral responses in three different epidemiological regions: a follow-up study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Q fever in the Netherlands: public perceptions and behavioral responses in three different epidemiological regions: a follow-up study
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-263
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marloes Bults, Desirée Beaujean, Clementine Wijkmans, Jan Hendrik Richardus, Hélène Voeten

Abstract

Over the past years, Q fever has become a major public health problem in the Netherlands, with a peak of 2,357 human cases in 2009. In the first instance, Q fever was mainly a local problem of one province with a high density of large dairy goat farms, but in 2009 an alarming increase of Q fever cases was observed in adjacent provinces. The aim of this study was to identify trends over time and regional differences in public perceptions and behaviors, as well as predictors of preventive behavior regarding Q fever.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 26%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Master 6 10%
Lecturer 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 6%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 14 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 March 2014.
All research outputs
#2,167,788
of 5,036,908 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,166
of 5,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,770
of 122,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#147
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,036,908 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 55th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 122,997 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.