↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of barriers to data sharing in public health

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
180 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
217 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
447 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
A systematic review of barriers to data sharing in public health
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1144
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willem G van Panhuis, Proma Paul, Claudia Emerson, John Grefenstette, Richard Wilder, Abraham J Herbst, David Heymann, Donald S Burke

Abstract

In the current information age, the use of data has become essential for decision making in public health at the local, national, and global level. Despite a global commitment to the use and sharing of public health data, this can be challenging in reality. No systematic framework or global operational guidelines have been created for data sharing in public health. Barriers at different levels have limited data sharing but have only been anecdotally discussed or in the context of specific case studies. Incomplete systematic evidence on the scope and variety of these barriers has limited opportunities to maximize the value and use of public health data for science and policy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 180 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 447 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 436 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 88 20%
Researcher 86 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 13%
Student > Bachelor 42 9%
Student > Postgraduate 30 7%
Other 86 19%
Unknown 59 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 19%
Social Sciences 57 13%
Computer Science 53 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 7%
Other 90 20%
Unknown 90 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 172. 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 11 April 2022.
All research outputs
#168,671
of 21,238,480 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#159
of 13,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,946
of 254,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#12
of 1,089 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,238,480 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 254,085 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 1,089 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 98% of its contemporaries.