↓ Skip to main content

The Ebola contagion and forecasting virus: evidence from four African countries

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

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
The Ebola contagion and forecasting virus: evidence from four African countries
Published in
Health Economics Review, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13561-015-0047-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selmi Nadhem, Hachicha D Nejib

Abstract

This paper is focused on examining the number of deaths' increases participation in the propagating the Ebola virus during the period ranging from March to October 2014. An application of the MGARCH-DCC model regressions on four countries has led to discover that the finding that human contact play a significant role in transmitting the Ebola virus. Our findings also reveal that Guinea has already suffered from a spread-like virus originating from Sierra Lione and Liberia. Noteworthy also, other countries are now liable to such a risk; for instance, Nigeria is a country vulnerable to the propagation of this virus. Consequently, we undertake to conduct our forecasts for EGARCH model estimates implements; which has estimated a decrease in the Ebola virus incurred number of deadly Ebola virus over the two months following the November and December.

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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 19%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Librarian 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Mathematics 2 6%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,438,924
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#173
of 429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,793
of 264,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 264,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 53% of its contemporaries.