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 |
The predictors of glucose screening: the contribution of risk perception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2296-15-108 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pilar Lavielle, Niels Wacher |
| Abstract |
The prevention of type 2 diabetes is a challenge for health institutions. Periodic blood glucose screening in subjects at risk for developing diabetes may be necessary to implement preventive measures in patients prior to the manifestation of the disease and to efficiently diagnose diabetes. Not only medical aspects, but also psychological and social factors, such as the perception of risk (the individuals' judgment of the likelihood of experiencing an adverse event) influence healthy or preventive behaviors. It is still unknown if risk perception can have an effect on health behaviors aimed at reducing the risk of diabetes (glucose screening). The objective of study was to identify factors that influence glucose screening frequency. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Librarian | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 32% |
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 05 June 2014.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,953
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,578
of 242,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#44
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 242,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.