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 |
Spatial modelling and mapping of female genital mutilation in Kenya
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-14-276 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas NO Achia |
| Abstract |
Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is still prevalent in several communities in Kenya and other areas in Africa, as well as being practiced by some migrants from African countries living in other parts of the world. This study aimed at detecting clustering of FGM/C in Kenya, and identifying those areas within the country where women still intend to continue the practice. A broader goal of the study was to identify geographical areas where the practice continues unabated and where broad intervention strategies need to be introduced. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 38% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 38% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 155 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 13% |
| Researcher | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 8% |
| Psychology | 12 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 19% |
| Unknown | 38 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 July 2015.
All research outputs
#6,448,853
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#6,625
of 15,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,961
of 226,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#95
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. 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 226,736 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 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 61% of its contemporaries.