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 |
Exploring racial/ethnic differences in substance use: a preliminary theory-based investigation with juvenile justice-involved youth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2431-11-71 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah W Feldstein Ewing, Kamilla L Venner, Hilary K Mead, Angela D Bryan |
| Abstract |
Racial/ethnic differences in representation, substance use, and its correlates may be linked to differential long-term health outcomes for justice-involved youth. Determining the nature of these differences is critical to informing more efficacious health prevention and intervention efforts. In this study, we employed a theory-based approach to evaluate the nature of these potential differences. Specifically, we hypothesized that (1) racial/ethnic minority youth would be comparatively overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, (2) the rates of substance use would be different across racial/ethnic groups, and (3) individual-level risk factors would be better predictors of substance use for Caucasian youth than for youth of other racial/ethnic groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 States | 9 | 90% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 107 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 14% |
| Psychology | 15 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 43 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 February 2012.
All research outputs
#5,500,307
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#865
of 2,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,346
of 106,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 106,705 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.