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 |
Impact of different privacy conditions and incentives on survey response rate, participant representativeness, and disclosure of sensitive information: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-90 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maureen Murdoch, Alisha Baines Simon, Melissa Anderson Polusny, Ann Kay Bangerter, Joseph Patrick Grill, Siamak Noorbaloochi, Melissa Ruth Partin |
| Abstract |
Anonymous survey methods appear to promote greater disclosure of sensitive or stigmatizing information compared to non-anonymous methods. Higher disclosure rates have traditionally been interpreted as being more accurate than lower rates. We examined the impact of 3 increasingly private mailed survey conditions--ranging from potentially identifiable to completely anonymous, on survey response and on respondents' representativeness of the underlying sampling frame--completeness in answering sensitive survey items, and disclosure of sensitive information. We also examined the impact of 2 incentives ($10 versus $20) on these outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 5 | 63% |
| Portugal | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 268 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 58 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 15% |
| Researcher | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 9% |
| Unknown | 80 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 10% |
| Psychology | 24 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 62 | 23% |
| Unknown | 84 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 156. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#259,348
of 25,173,778 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#15
of 2,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,086
of 233,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,173,778 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 233,070 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.