↓ Skip to main content

Contextual and psychosocial factors predicting Ebola prevention behaviours using the RANAS approach to behaviour change in Guinea-Bissau

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Contextual and psychosocial factors predicting Ebola prevention behaviours using the RANAS approach to behaviour change in Guinea-Bissau
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4360-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna E. Gamma, Jurgita Slekiene, Gregor von Medeazza, Fredrik Asplund, Placido Cardoso, Hans-Joachim Mosler

Abstract

The outbreak of the Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa in December 2013 was the largest Ebola outbreak in history. This study aimed to measure the underlying contextual and psychosocial factors of intentions to perform Ebola prevention behaviours (not touching people who might be suffering from Ebola, reporting suspected cases to the National Ebola Hotline, NEH) in Guinea-Bissau. Geographical location, cross-border market activities, poor water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) conditions, and burial practices in some communities pose a serious risk in terms of potential EVD outbreak and seriously hamper its prevention in Guinea-Bissau. In July and August 2015, quantitative data from 1369 respondents were gathered by structured face-to-face interviews. The questionnaire was based on the psychosocial factors of the RANAS (risks, attitudes, norms, abilities, and self-regulation) model. Data were analyzed by multiple linear regression analyses. The most important predictors for the intention to call the NEH were believing that calling the Hotline would help the infected person, perceiving that important members from the household approve of calling the Hotline, thinking that calling the Hotline is something they should do, and believing that it is important to call the Hotline to report a suspected case. For the intention not to touch someone who might be suffering from Ebola, the most important predictors were health knowledge, the perception of risk with regard to touching a person who might be suffering from Ebola, and the belief that they were able not to touch a possibly infected person. Age in years was the only significant contextual predictor for one of the two behavioural intentions, the intention to call the Hotline. It seems that younger people are more likely to use a service like the NEH than older people. Strengths and gaps were identified in the study population in relation to the intention to perform prevention behaviours. These call for innovative ways of aligning existing hygiene programs with relevant psychosocial factors. This research is relevant to further outbreaks of contagious diseases as it sheds light on important aspects of the impact of public health interventions during emergencies and epidemics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 11%
Psychology 13 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 29 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 25 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,519,672
of 23,427,600 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,893
of 15,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,492
of 310,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#61
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,427,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 310,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 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 74% of its contemporaries.