↓ Skip to main content

What have we learned about communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic: a systematic review of the literature

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 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
What have we learned about communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic: a systematic review of the literature
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-484
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leesa Lin, Elena Savoia, Foluso Agboola, Kasisomayajula Viswanath

Abstract

During public health emergencies, public officials are busy in developing communication strategies to protect the population from existing or potential threats. However, a population's social and individual determinants (i.e. education, income, race/ethnicity) may lead to inequalities in individual or group-specific exposure to public health communication messages, and in the capacity to access, process, and act upon the information received by specific sub-groups- a concept defined as communication inequalities.The aims of this literature review are to: 1) characterize the scientific literature that examined issues related to communication to the public during the H1N1 pandemic, and 2) summarize the knowledge gained in our understanding of social determinants and their association with communication inequalities in the preparedness and response to an influenza pandemic.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 259 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 18%
Student > Master 43 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 50 19%
Unknown 52 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 51 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 9%
Psychology 18 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 5%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 76 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#709,841
of 18,904,345 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#717
of 12,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,440
of 200,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,904,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 200,014 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them