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 |
An online network tool for quality information to answer questions about occupational safety and health: usability and applicability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-10-63 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martijn DF Rhebergen, Carel TJ Hulshof, Annet F Lenderink, Frank JH van Dijk |
| Abstract |
Common information facilities do not always provide the quality information needed to answer questions on health or health-related issues, such as Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) matters. Barriers may be the accessibility, quantity and readability of information. Online Question & Answer (Q&A) network tools, which link questioners directly to experts can overcome some of these barriers. When designing and testing online tools, assessing the usability and applicability is essential. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the usability and applicability of a new online Q&A network tool for answers on OSH questions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Ghana | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 14% |
| Engineering | 5 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
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 01 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,375,478
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,567
of 1,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,923
of 99,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#17
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,985 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 99,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.