↓ Skip to main content

Consumer response to media information: the case of grapefruit-medicine interaction

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Consumer response to media information: the case of grapefruit-medicine interaction
Published in
Health Economics Review, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13561-015-0069-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hyeyoung Kim, Lisa A. House, Matthew Salois

Abstract

This study measured the effect of media exposure on grapefruit/grapefruit juice consumption changes, in particular grapefruit-medicine interaction. Respondents' attitudes about health news on television and the internet were measured to account for consumers exposed versus not exposed to such information. Results of a sample selection model show that consumer attitudes toward health news were significantly related to exposure to media information. Also, news exposure about grapefruit-medicine interaction has a tendency to result in reduced grapefruit consumption. Consumers who are directly affected by the medication interaction significantly react to the news, and the effect varies by age. Even though consumer's age was positively related to the probability of increased grapefruit consumption, when consumers took the medication, consumer's age was negatively related to the probability of increased grapefruit consumption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 33%
Student > Bachelor 4 22%
Lecturer 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Other 5 28%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,349,419
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#261
of 429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,664
of 284,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 284,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.