↓ Skip to main content

Understanding human - bat interactions in NSW, Australia: improving risk communication for prevention of Australian bat lyssavirus

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Understanding human - bat interactions in NSW, Australia: improving risk communication for prevention of Australian bat lyssavirus
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1746-6148-10-144
Pubmed ID
Authors

Quinn EK, Massey PD, Cox-Witton K, Paterson BJ, Eastwood K, Durrheim DN, Emma K Quinn, Peter D Massey, Keren Cox-Witton, Beverley J Paterson, Keith Eastwood, David N Durrheim

Abstract

Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV) infects a number of flying fox and insectivorous bats species in Australia. Human infection with ABLV is inevitably fatal unless prior vaccination and/or post-exposure treatment (PET) is given. Despite ongoing public health messaging about the risks associated with bat contact, surveillance data have revealed a four-fold increase in the number of people receiving PET for bat exposure in NSW between 2007 and 2011. Our study aimed to better understand these human - bat interactions in order to identify additional risk communication messages that could lower the risk of potential ABLV exposure. All people aged 18 years or over whom received PET for non-occupation related potential ABLV exposure in the Hunter New England Local Health District of Australia between July 2011 and July 2013 were considered eligible for the study. Eligible participants were invited to a telephone interview to explore the circumstances of their bat contact. Interviews were then transcribed and thematically analysed by two independent investigators.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Other 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Environmental Science 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 9 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 July 2014.
All research outputs
#1,922,701
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#237
of 795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,384
of 109,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#16
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 56th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 795 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 109,072 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 57% of its contemporaries.