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 |
Metallic mercury use by South African traditional health practitioners: perceptions and practices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Health, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12940-015-0053-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Renée A. Street, Gaëtan M. Kabera, Catherine Connolly |
| Abstract |
Mercury is a toxic metal however its use in traditional healthcare systems remains widespread. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of mercury use by South African Traditional Health Practitioners (THP) and to document reasons for use and administration methods. A cross-sectional study design was employed. A total of 201 THPs were enrolled from two main metropolitan areas of KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa), and 198 were included in the final analysis. Information on demographic characteristics, reasons for using or not using mercury as well as mercury administration methods were collected. Of the 198 THPs, 78 (39 %) used mercury for healing purposes and 74 (95 %) of the mercury users stated that they were taught to use it by another THP. The two main routes of administration were oral and sub-cutaneous implantations (ukugcaba) at 85 % (n = 66) and 59 % (n = 46), respectively. The most common responses for mercury administration were for child birth (n = 70; 90 %) and protection against guns (n = 39; 50 %). This is the first study to describe the prevalence and practice of mercury use in South African traditional medicine. Socio-cultural mercury use is a potential source of exposure to both THPs and their patients. In light of such findings, public education messages and regulatory measures need to be effected. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,577,096
of 23,106,934 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#841
of 1,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,723
of 263,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,106,934 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 263,957 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.