↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors for unsafe behaviors toward grenades among rural populations affected by explosive devices in Colombia

Overview of attention for article published in Conflict and Health, March 2018
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Risk factors for unsafe behaviors toward grenades among rural populations affected by explosive devices in Colombia
Published in
Conflict and Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13031-018-0141-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew T. Boyd, Kristin Becknell, Steven Russell, Curtis Blanton, Susan T. Cookson, Oleg O. Bilukha, Mark Anderson

Abstract

Following decades of armed conflict, Colombia remains highly affected by explosive device (ED) contamination, especially in rural areas. Many victims are injured by EDs despite knowing their dangers. Determining risk factors for unsafe behaviors toward EDs, including grenades, is critical for preventing injuries. In 2012, CDC assisted Colombian partners in conducting a multi-stage knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey in rural ED-affected areas. Within each of 40 clusters, 28 households were selected, and participants aged 10 years or older were asked about behaviors toward EDs. Participants reported actual behaviors toward past EDs encountered and theoretical behaviors toward EDs not encountered. Behaviors were a priori classified as unsafe or safe. This analysis focuses on behaviors toward the most commonly encountered device, grenades. Of 928 adult and 562 child participants, 488 (52.5%) adults and 249 (43.9%) children encountered ED, while 121 (13.7%) adults and 148 (26.9%) children received mine risk education (MRE). Among the 430 (46.7%) adults who encountered grenades, 113 (25.7%) reported unsafe behaviors; multivariable analysis showed that unsafe behavior was associated with working outdoors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-2.7). Among the 429 (46.5%) adults who did not encounter ED, 61 (14.6%) described unsafe theoretical behaviors toward grenades; multivariable analysis showed that unsafe behavior was associated with older age (aOR: 1.02, 95% confidence limit [CL]: 1.00-1.05) and black or Afro-Colombian identity (aOR: 2.5, 95% CI 1.3-5.1). Among the 181 (32.0%) children who encountered grenades, 41 (23.8%) reported unsafe behaviors, while among the 311 (55.9%) children who did not encounter ED, 30 (10.2%) reported unsafe behavior. In both groups of children, multivariable analysis showed that unsafe behavior was associated with lower mean score on knowledge of ED, with aOR: 0.7, 95% CL: 0.6-0.9, and aOR: 0.8, 95% CL: 0.6-0.98, respectively. Participants reported frequent ED exposure but low receipt of MRE. Our findings should guide MRE improvement in ED-affected areas by strengthening the connection between ED knowledge and avoiding unsafe behavior, with a particular focus on people working outdoors. MRE should promote knowledge of ED risks but should also recognize socioeconomic factors that lead to engaging in unsafe behaviors.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Researcher 6 17%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Engineering 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 13 36%
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 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,478,082
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Conflict and Health
#246
of 578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,444
of 332,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conflict and Health
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 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 578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 332,016 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.