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 |
Using a social marketing framework to evaluate recruitment of a prospective study of genetic counseling and testing for the deaf community
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-145 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yoko Kobayashi, Patrick Boudreault, Karin Hill, Janet S Sinsheimer, Christina GS Palmer |
| Abstract |
Recruiting deaf and hard-of-hearing participants, particularly sign language-users, for genetics health service research is challenging due to communication barriers, mistrust toward genetics, and researchers' unfamiliarity with deaf people. Feelings of social exclusion and lack of social cohesion between researchers and the Deaf community are factors to consider. Social marketing is effective for recruiting hard-to-reach populations because it fosters social inclusion and cohesion by focusing on the targeted audience's needs. For the deaf population this includes recognizing their cultural and linguistic diversity, their geography, and their systems for information exchange. Here we use concepts and language from social marketing to evaluate our effectiveness to engage a U.S. deaf population in a prospective, longitudinal genetic counseling and testing study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 19% |
| Psychology | 9 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 24% |
| Unknown | 21 | 25% |
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 25 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,369,403
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,732
of 2,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,717
of 304,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#23
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 304,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.